Rather it reads like an unprocessed intelligence report. A lot of the sources are unverifiable and the document does contain the kind of caveats intelligence operatives would then put over the truth or provability of the information. But it does not contain proof, or a reasoned judgement, or peer-reveiewed professional opinions. Or rather it contains only as much as a small private operation with no big data surveillance could do. Some of the details turn out to be wrong.
Pissing on the Ritz
Paul Mason

In other words: a first draft. One or two people worked on it.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.