Est. 1995

Tag: Democracy (Page 1 of 2)

Disinformation is one of the world’s biggest risks ahead of elections, reports say. But it doesn’t have to be.

Disinformation is one of the world’s biggest risks ahead of elections, reports say. But it doesn't have to be.

As we hurtle toward one of the most consequential election years of our lifetimes, major groups are warning of a huge risk on the horizon: mis- and disinformation.

That’s according to both the World Economic Forum and the Eurasia Group, which published separate but eerily similar reports on the biggest risks the world faces as we head into 2024.

With disinformation fueling division, the Eurasia Group warned that the upcoming US election will be “testing American democracy to a degree the nation hasn’t experienced in 150 years and undermining US credibility on the global stage.”

But that disinformation isn’t coming out of nowhere. There’s a business model that fuels it — the global ad tech market, which is expected to be worth $2.9 trillion by 2031, according to Forbes.

Thanks to an almost total lack of transparency in this industry, disinformation is profitable. But that doesn’t have to be the case.

Here’s what’s at stake, according to some of the biggest thinkers out there.

What do these reports actually say?

The biggest challenge of 2024, the Eurasia Group wrote, is “the United States vs itself.”

The political risk consultancy warned in its report that “public trust in core institutions—such as Congress, the judiciary, and the media—is at historic lows; polarization and partisanship are at historic highs.

“Add algorithmically amplified disinformation to the mix, and Americans no longer believe in a common set of settled facts about the nation and the world.”

That’s a scary thought ahead of an incredibly important election — and the Eurasia Group isn’t alone in that concern.

The WEF’s Global Risks Report 2024 — which surveyed 1,500 experts around the world — painted a picture of a treacherous road ahead with “optimism” in “short supply.”

The biggest short-term risk the experts outlined was “the spread of mis- and disinformation around the globe.”

This “could result in civil unrest, but could also drive government-driven censorship, domestic propaganda and controls on the free flow of information,” the WEF website summarized.

It could have a serious impact on elections around the world in 2024, which are set to take place in several countries, including Bangladesh, Mexico, India, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

“The widespread use of misinformation and disinformation, and tools to disseminate it, may undermine the legitimacy of newly elected governments,” the WEF warned. “Resulting unrest could range from violent protests and hate crimes to civil confrontation and terrorism.”

What do ads have to do with this?

While the takeaways are terrifying, we can tackle disinformation targeting voters. Because disinformation is a business, and its revenue source is ads.

Programmatic advertising — the automation of buying and selling ads — has let companies introduce so many middlemen and layers to the ad-buying process that brands often have no idea what their ad spend is funding.

When you consider that the global ad tech industry is worth hundreds of billions of dollars right now — and that as much as 3 percent of programmatic ad buys go toward an “unknown” — that’s a lot of money disappearing into the ether.

We’ve caught disinformation grifters sticking their hands into this cookie jar, swiping ad dollars from brands that want nothing to do with their websites.

Consider Breitbart, a site full of racism and disinformation that brands including BMW have publicly said they don’t want to advertise on. How was it still serving BMW retailer ads in December?

Because bad actors know how this incredibly technical process works and use its complexity to profit. One way they game the system is by pooling together their inventory and hiding their icky websites behind brand-safe fronts.

Google and other ad exchanges are accomplices in the disinformation-for-profit business. Google controls most of the automated ad-buying-and-selling processes. It requires next-to-no transparency from the websites it works with, and regularly fails to enforce its own policies. We even caught Google profiting from scammers selling fake Shark Tank diet pills.

We don’t know if Google’s failures are because it doesn’t care or because it has lost control of its near-monopoly on the advertising ecosystem. But it doesn’t matter because the effect is the same: It makes disinformation profitable.

And that disinformation is threatening elections around the world.

But by holding ad exchanges accountable and empowering advertisers by pushing for greater transparency, we can close off the paths that make disinformation profitable.

And just maybe save democracy in the process.

A True Tragedy of the Commons

When the commons are sliced and diced by private enterprise, the result is almost always a true “tragedy of the commons” (to quote ecologist Garrett Hardin): exploitation, monopoly, and price gouging.

Whether in a nation’s schools, its utilities, its prisons, its public roads, or even its internet access, when these core parts of the commons are privatized and then ring-fenced by private enterprise, somebody is going to get rich, and the majority of the people will be poorer. Libertarians and their fellow travelers, however, deny that such natural monopolies even exist.

“There is no evidence at all that at the outset of public- utility regulation there existed any such phenomenon as a ‘natural monopoly,’” wrote Thomas J. DiLorenzo for the Review of Austrian Economics. He opened the article, in fact, with an even bolder statement by libertarian apologist Murray Rothbard: “The very term ‘public utility’ . . . is an absurd one.”

Libertarianism was invented in 1946 by a think tank organized to advance the interests of very big business, the Foundation for Economic Education. FEE’s project was to provide a pseudoscientific and pseudoeconomic rationale for business’s attacks on government regulation, particularly government “interfering” in “markets” by protecting organized labor’s right to form a union. They invented the libertarian movement out of whole cloth to accomplish this.

FEE was founded in 1946 by Donaldson Brown, a member of the boards of directors of General Motors and DuPont, along with his friend Leonard Read, a senior US Chamber of Commerce executive (and failed businessman).

How Big Business Conquered America

In 1950, the US House Select Committee on Lobbying Activities, sometimes called the Buchanan Committee after its chairman, Representative Frank Buchanan, D-Pa., found that FEE was funded by the nation’s three largest oil companies, US Steel, the Big Three automakers, the three largest retailers in the country, the nation’s largest chemical companies, and other industrial and banking giants like GE, Eli Lilly, and Merrill Lynch.

As reporter Mark Ames found when researching the Buchanan Committee’s activities, FEE’s board of directors included Robert Welch, who would go on to found the John Birch Society with help from Fred Koch, along with a well-known racist and anti-Semite, J. Reuben Clark, and Herb Cornuelle, who was also on the board of United Fruit (which was then running operations against working and indigenous people in Hawaii and Central America).

The Buchanan Committee also discovered that an obscure University of Chicago economist, Milton Friedman, was working as a paid shill for the real estate industry. He was hired through FEE to come up with and publicize “economic” reasons for ending rent price controls, commonly known as rent control. The public good didn’t matter, Friedman concluded; all that mattered was the ability of businessmen to work in a “free market”—free of any substantive obligation to anything other than their profits.

The Buchanan Committee knew what it had found. It reported the following:

“It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the Foundation for Economic Education exerts, or at least expects to exert, a considerable influence on national legislative policy. . .

“It is equally difficult to imagine that the nation’s largest corporations would subsidize the entire venture if they did not anticipate that it would pay solid, long-range legislative dividends.”

As Ames notes and the committee uncovered

“‘Libertarianism’ was a project of the corporate lobby world, launched as a big business ‘ideology’ in 1946 by the US Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers.”

The man financing much of this, Herbert Nelson, head of the real estate lobby, didn’t think that democracy was even particularly useful, especially if it interfered with the ability of very wealthy people and big corporations to control both markets and the nation. As Nelson wrote, and the committee revealed, “I do not believe in democracy. I think it stinks. I don’t think anybody except direct taxpayers should be allowed to vote.”

In that, Nelson was simply echoing the perspective of many of the conservative movement’s most influential thinkers, from Ayn Rand to Phyllis Schlafly. Ask any objectivist (follower of Ayn Rand) or true libertarian, and they’ll tell you upfront: the markets, not voters in a democracy, should determine the fate and future of a nation.

As Stephen Moore, whom Donald Trump tried to nominate to the Federal Reserve, told me on my radio program during the Bush years, he considers capitalism more important than democracy. There’s only one power on earth that can successfully take on monopolists who want to dominate not only a nation’s markets but its politics as well: government. Only We the People can challenge the power of massive, aggregated wealth and the political power it carries.

That’s why libertarians and their libertarian-influenced Republican allies constantly rail against government. As Reagan said in his 1981 inaugural address: “Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.” And if you own a major oil refinery that’s facing huge fines for polluting and causing cancers and don’t want to spend the money to clean it up, that’s true.

Using libertarian theory and theology, big business now has an army of true believers, ready to join the newest billionaire-funded Tea Party to complain about things like health and safety regulations by calling them “government health insurance” and “government interference.”

Meanwhile, it’s now fashionable for tech billionaires to call themselves libertarians.

“They’re poisoning the blood of our country.”

Miller and Trump

Donald Trump’s term as president was chaotic, with an ever-changing cast of characters installed in top positions. But, amidst the mayhem, senior advisor Stephen Miller was a constant. Miller, an anti-immigrant hardliner, started out advising Trump on the 2016 campaign and remained in the White House for Trump’s entire tenure. He was the architect of many of Trump’s most controversial policies, including the initiative to separate migrant children from their parents.

Miller has also remained a close advisor to Trump. In November, when the New York Times sought comment about Trump’s immigration agenda in a potential second term, the campaign “referred questions… to Stephen Miller.” Should Trump prevail in 2024, Miller is expected to be installed in an even more powerful position, perhaps Attorney General. (Miller is not a lawyer, but that is not technically a requirement for the job.)

After Trump was defeated in 2020, Miller started a non-profit dedicated to advancing Trump’s priorities, America First Legal. Through America First Legal, Miller has initiated dozens of legal actions, accusing various entities of discriminating against white people. For example, Miller filed a complaint against NASCAR — a sport with just a handful of non-white competitors — for “ongoing, deliberate, and illegal discrimination against white, male Americans.”

Miller has a history of promoting explicitly white nationalist texts. In a 2015 email to an editor at Breitbart, a far-right website, Miller recommended promoting the racist French novel The Camp of the Saints. The book, published in 1973, depicts the destruction of Western civilization due to an influx of dark-skinned migrants. The migrants “are portrayed as diseased people who eat human feces.” The title is a Biblical reference “to the army gathered by Satan who overrun the earth, including the camp of the saints.” The Camp of the Saints helped popularize the racist “Great Replacement” theory, which posits that there is an intentional effort to “replace” white populations with non-white migrants. It has been “a must-read within white supremacist circles for decades.”

In recent weeks, Trump has featured these racist concepts in his campaign rallies, claiming immigrants are “poisoning the blood of our country.” Trump featured this rhetoric during a December 16 rally in New Hampshire:

They’re poisoning the blood of our country. That’s what they’ve done… They’re coming into our country, from Africa, from Asia, all over the world. They’re pouring into our country. Nobody’s even looking at them. They just come in. The crime is going to be tremendous.

Hitler made very similar arguments to justify genocide in his autobiography, Mein Kampf. “All great cultures of the past perished only because the originally creative race died out from blood poisoning,” Hitler wrote. Hitler also argued that Germanic people were successful because they “racial stock pure and did not mix it with any other racial stock.” The dominance of Germanic people would continue, Hitler argued, “as long as that element does not fall a victim to the habit of adulterating its blood.” Ruth Ben-Ghiat, a professor at NYU and an expert in fascism, noted that “Nazis made the fear of blood pollution of their master race and their civilization a foundation of their state.”

Spoiler: dehumanize immigrants now so the public will accept your repression of them when you return to office.

Trump has been speaking about the dangers of “blood poisoning” since September. People quickly noted the parallels to Hitler, but Trump has continued to use the phrase. In a December 22 radio interview with Hugh Hewitt, Trump maintained that he “never knew that Hitler said it” and “never read Mein Kampf.” Trump went on to say that he knows “nothing about Hitler” and is “not a student of Hilter.”

Despite his stated ignorance of Hitler, Trump maintained that Hitler “didn’t say [blood poisoning] the way I said it.” Trump says his use of the phrase “blood poisoning” is “very different” because Trump is talking about “people coming into our country [and]… destroying our country.” This is, of course, exactly how Hitler and other racists have used the phrase. 

In November, Trump also promised to “root out the communists, Marxists, fascists and the radical left thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our country.” Mein Kampf also describes Jews as “vermin.”

“By this time next year, American democracy will either be ending or will have dealt a dramatic blow to its foes. It’s Götterdämmerung in Trump’s war against the world’s most powerful office.”

~Ben Wittes

Trump has repeatedly claimed ignorance to excuse ties to racists. For example, when former KKK grand wizard David Duke endorsed his candidacy in 2016, Trump said he didn’t “know anything about David Duke” and didn’t “know anything” about “white supremacy or white supremacists.” In a 2020 debate with Joe Biden, Trump claimed to be unfamiliar with the Proud Boys, a violent hate group.

Why it matters

Ben-Ghiat warns that Trump’s rhetoric is not just idle chatter. Rather, Trump is “dehumanizing” immigrants and others now “to get Americans used to the idea that they should be persecuted.”

Miller, on behalf of Trump’s campaign, pledged that “Trump will unleash the vast arsenal of federal powers to implement the most spectacular migration crackdown.” Miller described plans to “deport people by the millions per year” with a “blitz” intended “to overwhelm immigrant-rights lawyers.”

New tactics will include “workplace raids and other sweeps in public places aimed at arresting scores of unauthorized immigrants at once.” The scope of these raids would exceed the current capacity of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, so the effort would enlist personnel from the National Guard and other law enforcement agencies. Arrested migrants would be shuttled to “vast holding facilities that would function as staging centers.” These tent cities would be built by the military “on open land in Texas near the border,” according to Miller.

The facilities would initially be “focused more on single adults because the government cannot indefinitely hold children under a longstanding court order known as the Flores settlement.” Miller said a second Trump administration would renew its efforts to overturn the Flores settlement. Reimplementing the child separation policy is also a possibility.

Mildly objecting to copying Hilter

Trump is in the middle of a campaign to secure the Republican presidential nomination. According to polls, Trump holds a wide lead and the Iowa caucus takes place in just two weeks.

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis (R), once considered Trump’s chief competition, passed on an opportunity to criticize Trump.

“I don’t know what this means with the blood stuff,” DeSantis said on Fox News. “I know people are trying to draw historical allusions. I don’t know if that’s what he meant.” The best DeSantis could manage was saying that he did not think Trump’s rhetoric would “move the ball forward.”
Nikki Haley
Former South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley (R), who has gained some momentum in recent weeks, offered only tepid criticism of Trump in an interview with the Des Moines Register. Haley called Trump’s comments “not constructive” and “not necessary.” She then listed a series of actions she would take to deport migrants.

Good News


Work for justice, but pause to celebrate
We are aware that atrocious, inhumane events are happening both at home and abroad. Because of this, though celebration may seem superficial, it is crucial to recognize that our efforts are leading to the change we seek. While we work for justice, let us also pause to acknowledge the considerable good that pervades our goals and communities.


Celebrate good news

Support the good news list

Some very special people help make our lists of good news and positive actions possible. Thank you, patrons! Join them to get the good news a week early! Learn more here.

— Jen Hofmann and the AoCC team

Good news


Here at CounterPoint, we sort through the 24/7 fire hose of news to try to bring attention to under-heard voices of reason. We’ll continue to do that, but it’s just as important to celebrate good news whenever we can. We’re so grateful to activist Jennifer Hofmann and her Americans of Conscience volunteers for their dedication to turning bad news into positive action.


Here’s a recent sample:

Did Facebook enable global political manipulation?

Listen to the story:


When Sophie Zhang went public with explosive revelations detailing the political manipulation she’d uncovered during her time as a data scientist at Facebook, she supplied concrete evidence to support what critics had long been saying on the outside: that Facebook makes election interference easy, and that unless such activity hurts the company’s business interests, it can’t be bothered to fix the problem.

On her last day, hours after she posted her memo internally, Facebook deleted it (though they later restored an edited version after widespread employee anger). A few hours later, an HR person called her, asking her to also remove a password-protected copy she had posted on her personal website. She tried to bargain: she would do so if they restored the internal version. The next day, instead, she received a notice from her hosting server that it had taken down her entire website after a complaint from Facebook. A few days after that, it took down her domain as well.

These are some of the biggest revelations in Zhang’s memo:

  • It took Facebook’s leaders nine months to act on a coordinated campaign “that used thousands of inauthentic assets to boost President Juan Orlando Hernandez of Honduras on a massive scale to mislead the Honduran people.” Two weeks after Facebook took action against the perpetrators in July, they returned, leading to a game of “whack-a-mole” between Zhang and the operatives behind the fake accounts, which are still active.
  • In Azerbaijan, Zhang discovered the ruling political party “utilized thousands of inauthentic assets… to harass the opposition en masse.” Facebook began looking into the issue a year after Zhang reported it. The investigation is ongoing.
  • Zhang and her colleagues removed “10.5 million fake reactions and fans from high-profile politicians in Brazil and the US in the 2018 elections.”
  • In February 2019, a NATO researcher informed Facebook that “he’d obtained Russian inauthentic activity on a high-profile U.S. political figure that we didn’t catch.” Zhang removed the activity, “dousing the immediate fire,” she wrote.
  • In Ukraine, Zhang “found inauthentic scripted activity” supporting both former prime minister Yulia Tymoshenko, a pro–European Union politician and former presidential candidate, as well as Volodymyr Groysman, a former prime minister and ally of former president Petro Poroshenko. “Volodymyr Zelensky and his faction was the only major group not affected,” Zhang said of the current Ukrainian president.
  • Zhang discovered inauthentic activity — a Facebook term for engagement from bot accounts and coordinated manual accounts— in Bolivia and Ecuador but chose “not to prioritize it,” due to her workload. The amount of power she had as a mid-level employee to make decisions about a country’s political outcomes took a toll on her health.
  • After becoming aware of coordinated manipulation on the Spanish Health Ministry’s Facebook page during the COVID-19 pandemic, Zhang helped find and remove 672,000 fake accounts “acting on similar targets globally” including in the US.
  • In India, she worked to remove “a politically sophisticated network of more than a thousand actors working to influence” the local elections taking place in Delhi in February. Facebook never publicly disclosed this network or that it had taken it down.

By speaking out and eschewing anonymity, Zhang risked legal action from the company, harm to her future career prospects, and perhaps even reprisals. Her story reveals that it is really pure luck that we now know so much about how Facebook enables election interference globally. To regulators around the world considering how to rein in the company, this should be a wake-up call.


She risked everything to expose Facebook. Now she’s telling her story.

Democracy in Distress: Unpacking America’s 5 Top Threats 

Threat 1: Cynicism and Apathy

Opposite sides of the same coin, cynicism and apathy are the reasons many Americans are not taking action right now. In a democracy, if we don’t use it, we lose it. The challenge is getting people to care enough to speak up and be part of the solutions. In the first of five articles, learn the single, most effective way to overcome cynicism and apathy—others and your own.

Threat 2: Misinformation

Have you noticed how friends and family are resistant to correct information? The current state of siloed news in the U.S. is profoundly toxic to our democracy. Yet there are ways to share accurate information that cuts through resistance. Learn all about what works in week two.

Threat 3: Hate

Abuse aimed at people of different races, economic statuses, genders, religions, etc. is an abject failure of our society. While hate might seem intractable, it isn’t. In the third week, we’ll introduce you to straightforward solutions that stop hatred at its root, creating a kinder, more equitable nation.

Threat 4: Uncivil discourse

Collaboration is the key ingredient that makes democracy work. Disrespect and disdain kill it. We cannot tolerate extreme views, but most Americans have positive overlaps in their political Venn diagrams; The trick is learning to find them. In week four, learn techniques that restore trust, civility, and collaboration—in our neighborhoods to Congress.

Threat 5: News and social media

The myriad outlets that keep us informed can also cause apathy, cynicism, and overwhelm. Corporate advertising plays to our fears by design, decreasing the quality and depth of information we need to understand important issues. In the final week, discover new strategies that keep you in control as a consumer of news media and informed as an engaged citizen.

What’s next

As we gear up for the next presidential primaries and election, there’s no time like the present to take an active part in your nation’s future. Addressing these threats strategically with thoughtful, doable steps can create the welcoming country we know is possible. In the coming weeks, look for clear ways to speak up and show up for ourselves, each other, and future generations:

Don’t let headlines demoralize you. 


Americans of Conscience

You’re not alone in your hopes for a better nation. While there’s always work to do, it’s vital to pause from time to time, recognize signs of progress, and celebrate successes together.

Intentional celebration builds resiliency. So, we offer you this week’s list of wins for democracy, equity, and checks on those who want to take our nation backward. Thanks for being part of something hopeful!

Want to be part of the solution?

Open our most recent Americans of Conscience Checklist, take action, and let your voice be heard!

US Military Held Hostage by MAGA Republicans

Listen to Congresswoman Abigail Spanberger talk about the impact on the spouses and children of military families who deserve more than cheap platitudes and drunken clapping for their contributions to our nation.

Every person with a phone should call their two US senators and members of Congress and express outrage over this. You can contact the United States Capitol switchboard at (202) 224-3121. A switchboard operator will connect you directly with the Senate office you request. To find your representative, you can use this tool. Demand action on this very serious issue.


By Carlos Del Toro, Frank Kendall, and Christine Wormuth
September 4, 2023

As the civilian leaders of the Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, Space Force, and Army, we are proud to work alongside exceptional military leaders who are skilled, motivated, and empowered to protect our national security.

These officers and the millions of service members they lead are the foundation of America’s enduring military advantage. Yet this foundation is being actively eroded by the actions of a single U.S. senator, Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.), who is blocking the confirmation of our most senior military officers.

The senator asserts that this blanket and unprecedented “hold,” which he has maintained for more than six months, is about opposition to Defense Department policies that ensure service members and their families have access to reproductive health no matter where they are stationed.

After the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, this policy is critical and necessary to meet our obligations to the force. It is also fully within the law, as confirmed by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel.

Senators have many legislative and oversight tools to show their opposition to a specific policy. They are free to introduce legislation, gather support for that legislation, and pass it. But placing a blanket hold on all general and flag officer nominees, who as apolitical officials have traditionally been exempt from the hold process, is unfair to these military leaders and their families.

And it is putting our national security at risk.

Thus far, the hold has prevented the Defense Department from placing almost 300 of our most experienced and battle-tested leaders into critical posts around the world.

Three of our five military branches — the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps — have no Senate-confirmed service chief in place. Instead, these jobs — and dozens of others across the force — are being performed by acting officials without the full range of legal authorities necessary to make the decisions that will sustain the United States’ military edge.

Across the services, many generals and admirals are being forced to perform two roles simultaneously. The strain of this double duty places a real and unfair burden on these officers, the organizations they lead, and their families.

The blanket hold is also exacting a personal toll on those who least deserve it.

Each of us has seen the stress this hold is inflicting up and down the chain of command, whether in the halls of the Pentagon or at bases and outposts around the world.

We know officers who have incurred significant unforeseen expenses and are facing genuine financial stress because they have had to relocate their families or unexpectedly maintain two residences.

Military spouses who have worked to build careers of their own are unable to look for jobs because they don’t know when or if they will move. Children don’t know where they will go to school, which is particularly hard given how frequently military children change schools already.

These military leaders are being forced to endure costly separations from their families — a painful experience they have come to know from nearly 20 years of deployments to places such as Iraq and Afghanistan.

All because of the actions of a single senator.

Any claim that holding up the promotions of top officers does not directly damage the military is wrong — plain and simple.

The leaders whose lives and careers are on hold include scores of combat veterans who have led our troops into deadly combat with valor and distinction in the decades since 9/11. These men and women each have decades of experience and are exactly who we want — and need — to be leading our military at such a critical period of time.

The impact of this hold does not stop at these officers or their family members.

With the promotions of our most senior leaders on hold, there is a domino effect upending the lives of our more junior officers, too.

Looking over the horizon, the prolonged uncertainty and political battles over these military nominations will have a corrosive effect on the force.

The generals and admirals who will be leading our forces a decade from now are colonels and captains today. They are watching this spectacle and might conclude that their service at the highest ranks of our military is no longer valued by members of Congress or, by extension, the American public.

Rather than continue making sacrifices to serve our nation, some might leave uniformed service for other opportunities, robbing the Defense Department of talent cultivated over decades that we now need most to maintain our superiority over our rivals and adversaries.

Throughout our careers in national security, we have deeply valued the bipartisan support shown for our service members and their families. But rather than seeking a resolution to this impasse in that spirit, Tuberville has suggested he is going to further escalate this confrontation by launching baseless political attacks against these men and women.

We believe that the vast majority of senators and Americans across the political spectrum recognize the stakes of this moment and the dangers of politicizing our military leaders. It is time to lift this dangerous hold and confirm our senior military leaders.

Carlos Del Toro, Secretary of the US Navy
Frank Kendall, Secretary of the US Air Force
Christine Wormuth, Secretary of the US Army

« Older posts

© 2024 CounterPoint