The Meta Archipelago
One Day in the Life of Peter Maguire
Unlimited power in the hands of limited people always leads to cruelty.
—Alexander Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago
Weeks after 9/11, senior Justice Department lawyers convinced President Bush that the “War on Terror” required “a new paradigm” that would render the Geneva Convention’s limitations on the treatment of prisoners of war “obsolete.” That fall, the President explicitly rejected the codified laws of war and even older customary rules. Next, he pushed aside the military professionals, and his administration’s lawyers argued that there were no limits—constitutional or congressional—on presidential authority. Brazen disregard for the laws of war was quickly elevated to a matter of principle as America began a sordid affair with what Vice President Cheney described as “the dark side.”
As one of the nation’s experts on the laws of war and war crimes trials, I began to speak and to write critically about the Bush administration’s “new paradigm” in November 2001. It was one thing for American Special Forces teams to play fast and loose with the laws of war on hot battlefields in the Pashtu frontier, where the irregular nature of the foe merited such an approach. However, Army reservists would soon be applying these same standards. It was a recipe for disaster. 1
In May 2002, Jose Padilla, a U.S. citizen and aspiring terrorist, was arrested at Chicago’s O’Hare Airport and held as a material witness on a warrant issued in New York.
Two days before District Court Judge Michael Mukasey was set to rule on the validity of his detainment, President Bush declared Padilla “an enemy combatant,” and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld ordered him transferred to a military brig in Charleston, South Carolina. That same day, Attorney General John Ashcroft went on live television and announced, “We have captured a known terrorist who was exploring a plan to build and explode a radiological dispersion device, or ‘dirty bomb, in the United States.” 2
Shortly after Jose Padilla’s transfer to military custody, his public defenders, Donna Newman and Andy Patel, contacted me and my longtime Columbia University colleague, laws of war professor Jonathan Bush.
The criminal defense attorneys were interested in my views on definitions of legal and illegal combatants. In my 2001 book Law and War, I had compared the U.S. government’s treatment of vanquished Confederates to the vanquished Sioux Indians who they were fighting simultaneously in 1862. I argued that throughout U.S. history, “America fought according to different sets of rules depending on its adversaries.”
After our meeting at Newman’s house in New Jersey, I took a keen interest in the Padilla case because I sensed that the Bush administration was grossly overstating the importance of this former teenage gangbanger who converted to Islam in prison. Perhaps he aspired to be a terrorist, but we would later learn, that even in the eyes of Al-Qaeda’s leaders, he fell far short of the mark. To me this case was especially important because Jose Padilla was the first American citizen arrested and deemed an “enemy combatant.” He would test the government’s case for dissolving the separation of powers and weakening the Constitution. My greatest worry, however, was that if this U.S. citizen, no matter how bad he was, could be held without charges, access to a lawyer, and tortured, one day the same thing could happen to any American.
Shortly after I began corresponding with Donna Newman and Andy Patel by phone and email, I started getting hassled whenever I flew. More than a dozen times in U.S. airports I handed my ticket and ID to check-in agents, they tapped a few keys, their expressions changed, and without making eye contact they would say, “I need to get my supervisor,” and then dart off. Typically, there was a delay, then a supervisor would appear, ask a few banal questions, and send me on my way. Invariably, when I reached my destination, there would be a large, bright orange card inside any bag I checked informing me that the Department of Homeland Security had searched it. Around the same time, the land line at my New York City apartment began to make conspicuous clicking sounds that were impossible to ignore. When the person I was talking to asked about the sound, I would say, “Fuck you, Alberto Gonzales [U.S. Attorney General]. It’s probably the government listening to our call.”
At the time, I took all of this with a grain of salt. After all, I had been working in Cambodia since 1994, where political opponents were killed for their political views.
If minor harassment was the price I had to pay for exposing the unconstitutional absurdities of The Patriot Act, and international legal stains like the Jose Padilla case or interrogations at Guantanamo Bay that shocked even FBI agents, then so be it. 3
By the time the United States invaded Iraq in 2003, extraordinary rendition, secret prisons, indefinite detention of American citizens, domestic espionage, and watch lists were all accepted as facts of life by a submissive American population who viewed the havoc wrought in their name from afar. That arm’s-length relationship was shattered in 2004 when General Anthony Taguba’s report on prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib was leaked and photographs of American soldiers perversely torturing and humiliating common Iraqi criminals flashed around the world in seconds. Bin Laden himself could not have staged a more successful propaganda coup as smiling, fresh-faced American girls led naked Arab men on leashes. One senior policy maker described the perpetrators to me as “the seven soldiers who lost the war.”
During this time, Jose Padilla was held in total isolation in a 9’x7’ cell in South Carolina that had no clock, window, or calendar, and the only human voice he heard was that of his interrogator.
By 2004, Assistant Attorney General James Comey had already walked back the most serious charges against Padilla. Instead of detonating a radioactive bomb, he now stood accused of plotting to rent apartments then “seal those apartments, turn on the gas, and set timers to detonate and destroy the buildings simultaneously at a later time.” By the time Jose Padilla was indicted and allowed to meet with his lawyer in 2005, he had PTSD and Stockholm Syndrome. In the end, the aspiring terrorist was tried by a criminal court in Florida and sentenced to seventeen years for conspiracy.4
I had once thought that the war crimes trials of Japanese generals Tomoyuki Yamashita and Masaharu Homma were national embarrassments, but now they looked like Nuremberg compared to Saddam Hussein’s trial and the ongoing farce in Guantanamo Bay. I said all this and more in speeches at Harvard and the Army War College, interviews on public radio, and New York Newsday op-eds. 5
While I was most disgusted by the neocons, profoundly disappointing were the liberals who had been far to the left of me prior to 9/11 and now served as cheerleaders and enablers for the Global War on Terror. In their own nefarious ways, Judith Miller, Michael Gordon, Thomas Friedman, Michael Ignatieff, Andrew Sullivan, David Remnick, Jeffrey Goldberg, Peter Beinart, Paul Berman, Kenneth Pollack, and many others, sold and justified a morally and strategically bankrupt U.S. foreign policy.
Even the human rights luminaries at Harvard’s Big Tech-funded Carr Center were adrift. Michael Ignatieff now advocated the use of torture, and his Pulitzer Prize–winning colleague, Samantha Power, while quick to point out atrocities in Darfur, was conspicuously silent about the new American paradigm.6
After I gave an outspoken public speech at the Waialua Library near my house in Mokuleia, Hawaii, in 2005, my computer broke. Every day for about a week, I used the local library’s computers to write correspondence and read news. One afternoon I showed up to use the computer, and a librarian, with whom I was friendly, took me aside. He told me that a man who said he “worked for the government” had recently paid the library a visit and was full of questions about me.
I was more irritated than scared and reached out to a trusted associate who now held a high-ranking position in one of the many new American intelligence agencies created after 9/11. “Why is the U.S. government taking such an interest in a cranky, garden variety critic like me?” I asked. My friend replied, with some embarrassment, “You’re on a list, you’re not getting off it, and you’ll never know why.”
I had already assumed that anything and everything that I did online was insecure. For this reason, I was slow to warm to social media, but eventually succumbed to the charms of Facebook. I didn’t understand AI or algorithms, but was amazed by how much information people were giving away about themselves. At the time, I was writing Thai Stick, a book about marijuana smuggling, and began to use Facebook as a research tool. Not only was I able to find smugglers that I had been trying to locate for years, more often than not, a quick scroll through their friends list led me to their coconspirators. Over time, I too, lowered my guard and grew to enjoy Facebook because it allowed me to reconnect with so many old friends.
During the 2016 presidential election, I soured on Facebook as I watched lifelong friends turn into bitter enemies over politics. After the election, I tried my best to avoid politics on social media. It was clear to me that both parties were trying to use these platforms to their advantage, but above all, the discourse had gotten too stupid and ugly. I confined my use of Facebook and Instagram to promote my books, my nonprofit Fainting Robin Foundation, and to stay in touch with friends.
I was also becoming very wary of the power now wielded by the plutocrats who owned Big Tech companies like Microsoft, Facebook, Google, Apple, Amazon, and Twitter. While they are always careful to pay lip service to the progressive platitude du jour, beneath the Patagonia sweater vests and open collars lurked the most predatory, passive-aggressive, monopoly capitalists in human history. Irrespective of whatever personal political views they held, I simply did not trust these unelected owners of private companies to be the arbiters of free speech in America.
Also worrying was the “great migration of 2016” as more and more spooks and government insiders were offered small fortunes by Big Tech companies after Hillary Clinton’s humiliating defeat. Retired CIA agent Elizabeth Murray called it “insidious” and part of “the gradual and sinister migration of ambitious young professionals originally trained (with the CIA’s virtually unlimited, U.S.—taxpayer funded pot of resources) to surveil and target ‘bad guys’ during the so called Global War on Terror of the post-9/11 era.” According to The Intercept, Facebook was targeting Americans and had an online portal for federal law enforcement to flag content they wanted removed.
June 2, 2022, started like most days. I scrolled through my Facebook feed and noticed that there were ads posted on my page that I did not place there. The next day, when I tried to access my page, I received a message from Facebook stating that because my posts “violated community standards,” my account had been suspended. When I opened my email, there were two emails from Facebook:
Peter, you have 30 days to take action.
Hi Peter,
Your Facebook account has been suspended. This is because some of your posts or comments don’t follow our Community Standards.
If you think we suspended your account by mistake, you have 30 days to disagree with our decision. If you miss this deadline your account will be permanently disabled.”
Hi Peter,
We reviewed your business account Peter Maguire and determined that it does not comply with our terms, including our Commerce Eligibility Requirements. Because of this, your business account may be restricted from advertising, and your commerce accounts, starting 30 days after 2022-06-02, may be restricted from selling. If your commerce accounts are restricted, your shops will be disabled.
Facebook has no email address or phone number to appeal to, only a button to click that says, “Disagree with this decision.” I went down numerous rabbit holes in an effort to interface with a human and the only thing that I could find was a Facebook customer satisfaction survey that granted me a few hundred characters to write a message. I sent one:
Dear Facebook:
I suspect that my account was hacked. There were some curse words in an interview I posted on Thai Stick book. Other than that, I have no idea why my account was flagged.
Peter Maguire.
A few days later, I was contacted by my bank because someone was attempting to buy Facebook ads with a credit card that was on file with Facebook. On June 12, I received another email from Facebook stating that an unauthorized person had “accessed my account” and was invited to reset my password. Now, I thought that I was on the road to reinstatement, because it was obvious that I had been hacked. However, when I tried to log in, I was again informed that not only had I violated community standards, but I had posted “sexually inappropriate images of minors.” Now my account was “under review.”
Who would be so stupid as to commit social media Seppuku by posting porn on Facebook, much less illegal “sexually inappropriate images of minors”? Given that Facebook acknowledged that “an unauthorized person” accessed my account, then tried to use my credit card to buy their ads, surely someone there would realize this. Once again, my only recourse was to click the “disagree with this decision” button which I did, over and over.
As the days went by, I continued to receive this same “take action” message from Facebook and continued to click the “disagree with this decision” button and again, I made my case in the quality of service complaint box:
My account has been hacked. I have disagreed with Facebook suspending my account and I am receiving messages form [sic] Facebook that I have not [disagreed] and that my accounts: Peter Maguire, thaistickbook, and faintingrobinfoundation will be deactivated in 19 days. Facebook has provided the worst customer service in any sector of business I have ever experienced. Is this by design?
Finally, I decided to play the ace up my sleeve and reached out to an old friend who now worked at Facebook:
XXXX: @June 1 someone else began post[ing] on my page, the only thing I saw was an add [sic]. The next day, I received a message that I had posted sexually explicit material in violation of community standards. I had not done this so I challenged Facebook’s decision. On June 12 I received an email from Facebook saying that…an unauthorized person had ‘accessed my account.’ When I was invited to reset my passwords, I thought that I was on the road to reinstatement, but when I tried to log in I was again informed that I had violated community standards by posting sexually explicit material that involved minors and that my account was under review. I was again invited to challenge the decision which I did. A few days later, I was informed that I had 12 days to take action, something I had already done, or my account would be disabled forever.
Thanks for trying to help…
Peter
My old friend immediately jumped into the center of the fray and filed an internal report. More than a dozen emails back and forth, and a week or so later, Facebook reinstated my accounts. Finally, my name was cleared. On June 27, I wrote my old friend:
Thanks for your help. I got my Facebook back, it was kind of nice not getting bombarded by the opinions of people I like but don't always agree with….Thanks again, Peter.
Roughly a week later, I started my day like usual, procrastinating on Facebook, and before my eyes, something popped up on my feed that I did not post. There was no image, only words telling me that my post violated community standards. Once again, someone had taken control of my Facebook page and was posting “sexually inappropriate images of minors.” When I went to my Instagram account, I saw that it too had been hacked and now I was also locked out of it for “violations of community standards.” Once again, I clicked the “disagree with this decision” button. Just days prior, Facebook had conceded that I had been hacked by reinstating my account. Surely they would realize that I had been hacked again.
On July 5, I sent another message to the Facebook complaint box:
My page was hacked and Facebook penalizes me? Worse, there is no recourse, nobody to call or email. Just Facebook AI playing judge, jury and executioner. It is no surprise that so many are leaving the meta verse.
I waited for more than a week for action and was locked out of my Facebook and Instagram accounts. On July 17, I reluctantly reached out again to my old friend at Facebook for help:
XXXX: Sorry to bother you, but my personal Facebook page and thaistickbook instagram page…got hacked and I am in Meta prison once again. I plan to take my computer in to get checked as well. If you can put a good word in for me I would appreciate it. I'll be tapping out of social media once I recover all my words from Facebook.
Best, Peter.
Probably exhausted from friends like me reaching out to him for help, this time he did not respond, and I did not ask him for help again.
Next, I received an email from a Facebook address asking me to send a photo of my “driving licence” or passport to confirm my identity. Instead, I reached out to my old friend, Columbia University law professor Jonathan Bush, who sits on the board of my nonprofit. Jon convinced me that it was vital to both my reputation as a writer and the head of a nonprofit organization that I force Facebook to concede that I was not guilty of posting “sexually inappropriate images of minors.”
In August, I sent a copy of my driver’s license and a registered letter to Facebook’s headquarters at “1 Hacker Way” in Menlo, California.
August 22, 2022
Dear Facebook:
All of my Facebook accounts (Peter Maguire, Thai Stick Book, and Fainting Robin Foundation) and my Instagram account (thaistickbook) have been hacked for the second time in two months. Not only did the hacker post sexually explicit photos of minors on my pages, they used my credit card information that was on file with Facebook to purchase Facebook ads. After three weeks of challenging Facebook’s decision, my account was returned to me. Within days, the hacker, according to Facebook, posted two more photos that “go against our standards of child sexual exploitation.” Once again, Facebook is presently making the false and defamatory claim that I posted photographs that “go against our standards of child sexual exploitation.” Now I am receiving emails from someone claiming to be Facebook that ask me to send a photo of my ID over the internet (the word “license” is misspelled in the Facebook request for my ID). Given how insecure Facebook is, there is no way that I am sending you a photo of my ID over the internet. I enclosed a copy of my driver’s license. Facebook’s claims that I posted sexually explicit photos, of any kind, are false and defamatory.”
After waiting two months for a response and receiving none, I called yet another old friend, lawyer Kris Larsen. I first met Kris through Andy Patel when we were all working on terrorism cases in New York City. Kris agreed to help and told me that he would write a letter to Facebook and asked me to get the address of Meta’s chief legal officer. When I told him that it was none other than Patriot Act author Jennifer Newstead, we both laughed.
Although Jennifer Newstead was responsible for some of the most unconstitutional legal decisions in U.S. history, she earned nineteen million dollars her first year at Facebook and is now living the good life in Silicon Valley. 7
The Harvard, Yale law school, Davis, Polk, & Wardell alum is the consummate insider. Newstead served in both the Bush and Trump administrations and spent much of her career helping the U.S. government find and track the digital footprints of American citizens. Not only did she help draft the Patriot Act, Newstead acted as what Bush administration Assistant Attorney General and torture advocate, John Yoo, described as the “day-to-day manager of the Patriot Act in Congress.”
Not only did Section 215 of The Patriot Act gave the U.S. government the power to force companies to turn over data about persons of interest, but it also authorized the National Security Agency (NSA) to gather phone records from customers at companies like Verizon. Section 206 gave the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court the power to authorize the government to surveil phones and computers.
According to Department of Justice whistleblowers, Facebook was reporting private messages and the data of American citizens to the FBI for expressing what they define as “anti-government” or “anti-authority sentiments.” According to Meta’s own records, between January and June of 2022, Facebook received 69,363 government requests for data and delivered it to the U.S. government 87.97% of the time.8
I wondered if questions like the ones I posed below in my essay “Ukraine 1: Anomalies, Collapsing Paradigms, and the Courage to Draw Conclusions” now constituted “anti-government” and “anti authority” sentiments?
On January 27, 2022, I asked:
• Why are our ruling elites obsessed with Russia, but ignore America’s greatest geopolitical threat: China?
• Why are our ruling elites ready to go to war over the sanctity of Ukraine’s borders and sovereignty, but reject the sanctity of America’s borders and sovereignty?
• Why are our ruling elites fixated on “white nationalism,” but ignore the national security threat posed by an open southern border largely controlled by the Mexican drug cartels?
• Why did our ruling elites shut down the nation over COVID to save American lives, but continue to ignore the opiate epidemic?
• Why are our ruling elites lowering our nation’s educational standards in the name of “diversity, equity, and inclusion,” but ignoring a failing public education system that can no longer teach students to read and write at their grade levels?
• Why did our ruling elites support the Black Lives Matter and Defund The Police movements during the Corporate Cultural Revolution of 2020, but now ignore the black lives that are disproportionately affected by the anarchic violence that is sweeping the nation?
• Why do our ruling elites allow predatory criminals to run amok in our big cities, but arrest law abiding citizens for speaking out at school board meetings?
• Why do our ruling elites make the needs of homeless drug addicts and illegal migrants a higher priority than those of struggling veterans who served on the front lines in the disastrous Global War on Terror?
• Why do our ruling elites trust Big Tech, Big Pharma, and the Big Banks to regulate themselves, but tax and regulate our small businesses into extinction?
• Why do our ruling elites divide Americans on the basis of the ontological fiction of race, but turn a blind eye to the very real construct of class?
• Why do our ruling elites turn to the inaccurate journalism of incendiary activists like Nikole Hannah-Jones and Ibram X. Kendi for answers to complex questions about America’s troubled racial history, but ignore scholars like Barbara Fields and Adolph L. Reed, Jr. and who have forgotten more about this subject than Jones and Kendi will ever know?
• Why do our ruling elites continue to rely on failed foreign policy mandarins like Robert Kagan, Victoria Nuland, and Samantha Power, but sideline and ignore warrior/scholars like Jim Webb, Anthony Zinni, and Andrew Bacevich, who opposed their disastrous decisions and have actually felt the hard hand of war?
• Why do our ruling elites continue to listen to discredited “forever war” activist/journalists like Max Boot and David Frum, but ignore journalists like Ed Vulliamy and David Rieff who correctly predicted much of what has gone wrong since 9/11?”
Was I targeted for departing from the script of the latest non-oppositional ideology as I was for opposing the Bush administration’s buffoonery during the Global War on Terror? I don’t know, and I don’t lose sleep over it. In 2022, the world faces more pressing problems than a garden variety crank’s departure from Facebook and Instagram. If nothing else, what I feared in 2001 has come true. The “new paradigm” constructed by the Bush administration after 9/11 has been turned on American citizens for opposing whatever ideology rules the day.
Since 9/11, we have all been seduced, manipulated, and commodified by Big Tech. Today, Bill Gates, Jack Dorsey, Mark Zuckerberg, Sergey Brin, Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk and other unelected Tech plutocrats in charge of our cyber security and cyber censorship look more and more like sorcerer’s apprentices who have unleashed forces they can no longer control.
Given Big Tech’s subpar performance regulating themselves and protecting the privacy of their users, the U.S. government should reign them in with anti-trust legislation. Sadly, as the shlubby, crypto charlatan Sam Bankman-Fried has demonstrated, the Tech lords are too rich and our political system too corrupt for our bought-and-paid-for politicians to act. The only thing that will humble and finally bring Big Tech to its knees is the impending and inevitable cyber crisis. It is only a matter of time before an AI Frankenstein escapes from the lab, and hopefully, the world will survive. Albert Einstein put it best, “It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity.”
Until then, I will remain in the Meta archipelago, but like Ivan Denisovich, I will not give up.
Facebook Legal Department, 156 University Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301
Re: Malicious Hack and Suspension of Dr. Peter Maguire’s Facebook/Instagram Accounts, and Facebook’s Defamatory Accusations
November 7, 2022
Dear Ms. Newstead:
I represent Dr. Peter Maguire, a New York Times bestselling author, professor and chairman of the Fainting Robin Foundation. Dr. Maguire has thousands of followers on his Facebook pages (Thai Stick Book, Fainting Robin Foundation and Peter Maguire) and Instagram account (Thai Stick Book). As he describes in his own statement, included herewith, Dr. Maguire had his identity stolen by hackers who posted illegal content on his Facebook pages and then attempt to use his credit card that was on file with Facebook to purchase Facebook ads.
In June 2022, Facebook first suspended his pages for posting “sexually inappropriate pictures of minors.” It was only after he contacted a friend with connections at Facebook and some extraordinary efforts that he was cleared and his pages were restored. Even after this obvious hack, Facebook made no remedial measures to prevent the same thing from happening again. In August 2022, all of his Facebook pages and now his Instagram account were hacked again and his pages were again suspended for posting “sexually inappropriate pictures of minors.” Not only did Facebook ignore Dr. Maguire’s pleas for an investigation, they made it impossible for him to challenge these suspensions. All of his accounts remain suspended to this day because Facebook maintains my client violated Facebook’s community standards by posting “sexually inappropriate images of minors.”
Dr. Maguire was compelled to seek legal help because Facebook/Meta is again ignoring his complaints about the second hack and suspension, likely by the same hackers using the same “back-door” that they used the first time. Dr. Maguire has used Facebook and Instagram to promote his books, nonprofit foundation, and media appearances for many years. Being banned from these platforms for criminal breaches of his Facebook and Instagram accounts by hackers defames his reputation and character and causes damage to his brand and intellectual property.
Please contact me at XXX-XXX-XXXX to discuss immediately reinstating Dr. Maguire’s Facebook pages and to discuss how Facebook/Meta will repair the damage that has been done, preventing this from happening again, and identifying and prosecuting the perpetrators.”
Sincerely,
/s/ Kristian Karl Larsen, Esq.
We have yet to receive a reply from Ms. Newstead, but I will persist until my name is cleared.
https://www.academia.edu/14301719/Questions_Hang_Over_Military_Tribunals_20.
https://www.cnn.com/2002/US/06/10/ashcroft.announcement/.
FBI agents who visited the Cuban prison were shocked by both the style and the substance of the interrogations. Stupidly brutal, proudly racist, and deeply perverse, the FBI agents witnessed scantily clad female interrogators sexually taunting Muslim captives (one even smeared fake menstrual blood on a suspect).24 FBI agents watched one “detainee sitting on the floor of the interview room with an Israeli flag draped around him, loud music being played and a strobe light flashing.” According to one FBI memo, the theatrics “produced no intelligence.”
https://www.academia.edu/14303927/The_Lessons_of_Nuremberg_and_the_Human_Rights_Era_2002;https://www.academia.edu/14301876/Bad_Precedents_in_Military_Justice_2003;https://www.academia.edu/14302082/Bush_Cant_Have_Justice_Both_Ways_2003; https://www.academia.edu/14302242/Here_Comes_the_Judge_Hussein_Trial_May_Set_a_New_Low_2004;https://www.academia.edu/14302330/Look_At_Our_Prisoner_of_War_Policy_Now_2004;https://www.academia.edu/14302403/Soldier_Serves_as_Scapegoat_in_Iraq_Prison_Scandal_While_Higher_Ups_Duck_Responsibility_2005;https://www.academia.edu/14302446/Putting_the_Blame_Where_it_Really_Lies_2006;https://www.academia.edu/14302459/Padilla_Not_So_Fast.
https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691123936/the-lesser-evil; Ronald Steel’s New York Times scathing review of Ignatieff’s book: https://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/25/books/fight-fire-with-fire.html.
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/esg/facebooks-first-year-general-counsel-earns-19-million.
https://transparency.fb.com/data/government-data-requests/country/US/?source=https%3A%2F%2Ftransparency.facebook.com%2Fgovernment-data-requests%2Fcountry%2FUS.
Great writing, great perspective and an absolute great read. Thank you Peter. Thank you very much.
My god - what an ordeal. Gas, electric, water and -IMHO- large scale social media conglomerates - are UTILITIES and should be - at the very least - regulated as such ...