The purpose of this post is three-fold:
1. To reinforce the importance of independent journalism
2. To provide a relevant and current example where independent journalism is clearly doing what traditional journalism cannot or will not do
3. To argue that the current behaviour of the United States has made it essential that countries cease sending FATCA data (about their own residents) to the United States
1. To reinforce the importance of independent journalism
What I mean by “independent journalism” are the hundreds of independent people who publish individual blogs. We live in very confusing times. Mainstream media mostly “reports” the news (the degree of accuaracy is an open question). Mainstream news is aimed at a general audience. It has neither the capability nor intention of analyzing the news. “Independent journalism” fills that void and does the “heavy lifting” necessary to help people analyze the news understand the world. The creation of the Isaac Brock Society in 2011 (published as a blog) was one of the greatest examples of “Independent (and cooperative) journalism” ever. Brock’s creators, authors and commenters collectively both “reported” and “analyzed” the news in a specific and niche area.
HOW to think vs. WHAT to think
We live in an era of “short attention spans”. I am convinced that the rise of social media has changed the way that people receive information (short clips), process information (if it’s moe than 144 characters” I don’t want to read it) and ultimately what people do with information (accept it without analyzing it). This result is that social media (and algorithm) have become a reflection who can yell the loudest.
Fake news: Social media influencers vs. Social media commentators
The problem is compounded by the prevalence of social media and the rise of AI.
The good news:
Social media has allowed anybody to compete in the “news market”. Anybody can create a social media account and become a “self publisher”.
The bad news:
Social media has enhanced the opportunity for “fake news” to go viral. I highly recommend this 2025 article from “The Guardian” (assuming this is a reliable source).which includes:
More than a quarter of Canadians have been exposed to fake political content on social media that is “more sophisticated and more politically polarizing” as the country prepares to vote in a federal election, researchers have found, warning that platforms must increase protections amid a “dramatic acceleration” of online disinformation in the final weeks of the campaign.
In a new report released on Friday, Canada’s Media Ecosystem Observatory found a growing number of Facebook ads impersonating legitimate news sources were instead promoting fraudulent investment schemes, often involving cryptocurrency.
Canada’s federal election, on 28 April, is the first national vote in which Canadian news is not permitted to be shared on products owned by Meta, including Facebook and Instagram. The ban, which began in August 2023, is a result of a standoff between the tech giant and Ottawa over the Online News Act that forced intermediaries such as Meta and Google’s parent company Alphabet to compensate journalism outlets for sharing their content. Meta described the legislation, Bill C-18 – passed on 18 June – as “unworkable” and argued that the only way to comply with the law is to “end news availability for people in Canada”.
But media researchers found more than half of Canadians still say they get political news from Facebook, despite the platform’s ban on news articles from reputable outlets.
“People using Facebook aren’t often thinking, ‘Am I reading the news?’ But they leave feeling more informed politically, either from comments from friends or family, about the election. They might see a post from a candidate or follow cultural news aggregating types of accounts,” said Aengus Bridgman, the executive director of the MEO.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/apr/18/canada-fake-political-content-social-media
Anybody can report “news” – few can analyze the news as reported
The reporting of “news” without context and analysis can be dangerous. The shorter the information clip (think Facebook and X) the less likely it will include analysis. Independent bloggers have often provided context and analysis. The problem has been locating those independent bloggers who provide the valuable analysis that social media can’t. Everybody knows where the New York Times is located. People have not traditionally known where independent journalists are located. Interestingly. Substack has created a “coalition of independent journalists”. When one signs on to one newsletter you are exposed to similar newsletters. The success of Substack is a home for independent journalists is that it has become a place where one can find journalism about topics that are of interest and importance to you.
Substack – A “coalition of independent journalists”
Substack is a hub for independent journalists. For Americans abroad (or former Americans) Professor Heather Cox Richardson‘s (no relation to me) “Letters From An American” is incredibly interesting. It places much of the “Democracy In America” into historical perspective. If Alexis de Tocqueville were writing “Democracy In America” today, he might have written it on.a Substack. “Coalitions”of independent journalists are likely to become the dominant news sources in the years to come. This is because independent journalism is capable of providing a level of analysis that conventional media cannot or won’t.
2. To provide a relevant and current example where independent journalism is clearly doing what traditional journalism cannot or will not do
Ms. Cadallawar begins with:
“Today, I’m republishing my entire post from one year ago. Please read it. It was my attempt to state clearly what the US press was not: that the US was in the grips of a coup. And that if coordinated action was not taken fast, it would be too late.
It’s not that there wasn’t excellent reporting in the US press. There was. But there was a total absence of simple, bold labelling of what was actually happening. The major US news organisations could or would not call it what it was.
The event that triggered my nervous system was Elon Musk’s DOGE illegally entering the US treasury and gaining access to the entire nation’s personal and financial data: a system-level hack on the entire US population.
This was a power grab that could not be undone. Data is like a genie. It cannot be put back in the bottle. That one act – that was then replicated across the federal government – was the beginning of what I believed, still believe, is a technoauthoritarian state.
I also channelled the voices of key experts: historians of authoritarianism, Ruth Ben-Ghiat and Tim Snyder. They also said it loudly and clearly: it’s a coup.
It’s important to mark these moments, I believe. It’s one year on. And this week, it’s become distressingly clear that everything these historians have been warning about then, have warned about for nigh-on a decade, has now happened.
Thank you to everyone who commented on that and shared it.I never imagined it would meet with such a heartfelt response from so many people.
This week I was invited on Democracy Now, an indie American news station that punches well above its weight to talk about the Epstein piece I wrote and published here last week. I was blown away by the response to that piece and I just went to find the YouTube link to the show and I’m blown away again by the response to the interview: it’s reached 1m views in just a few days.”
3. To argue that the current behaviour of the United States has made it essential that countries cease sending FATCA data (about their own residents) to the United States
As Petros asks in his recent comment:
“Why not really assert independence from the USA and stop complying with FATCA?”
In the past year a private citizen, with the acquiesence of the U.S. government gained access to the U.S. government database of private information about U.S. citizens, residents and anybody else whose information happens to be in U.S. government databases.
In the past year the IRS has agreed to provide to immigration enforcement the addresses of non-citizens residing the United States.
It is crystal clear that information provided to the U.S. government will not remain confidential and will be used for any purpose.
It is clear that tax information provided/sent to the U.S. government will not remain confidential and will be used for reasons that go beyond tax enforcement. It is therefore equally clear that countries simply cannot provide data about their the non-U.S. source income of their own residents to the United States.
The legal justification for NOT sending FATCA information to the USA
Page 12 Paragraph 7 of the Canada United States FATCA IGA:
7. All information exchanged shall be subject to the confidentiality and other protections provided for in the Convention, including the provisions limiting the use of the information exchanged.
Click to access FATCA-Agreement-Canada-2-5-2014.pdf
The “convention” referred to is the US/Canada Tax Treaty which includes and information exchange provision in Article XXVII which includes:
3. In no case shall the provisions of paragraph 1 and 2 be construed so as to impose on a Contracting State the obligation:
(a) to carry out administrative measures at variance with the laws and administrative practice of that State or of the other Contracting State(b) to supply information which is not obtainable under the laws or in the normal course of the administration of that State or of the other Contracting State; or
(c) to supply information which would disclose any trade, business, industrial, commercial or professional secret or trade process, or information the disclosure of which would be contrary to public policy (ordre public).
It’s obvious that no country should be providing information about the non-U.S. source income of the country’s own tax residents to the United States. This (in my opinion) is an easy way for as Petros suggests:
“really assert independence from the USA and stop complying with FATCA”.
John Richardson – Follow me X.com/expatriationonlaw