Connect with us

International

EU’s top diplomat fires warning shot at Elon Musk over Twitter disinformation

A controversial move by Twitter-owner Elon Musk to end free access to its APIs by February 9 has attracted criticism from the European Union’s top diplomat…

Published

1 year ago

on

A controversial move by Twitter-owner Elon Musk to end free access to its APIs by February 9 has attracted criticism from the European Union’s top diplomat who has warned it could threaten the ability of researchers to study disinformation at a critical time — with Russia aggressively weaponizing disinformation to try to provide cover for its war in Ukraine.

In a speech today, detailing how the bloc has responded to Russia stepping up online disinformation campaigns since its invasion of Ukraine last February, high commissioner Josep Borrell urged more research into how social media platforms are being used to spread Kremlin propaganda.

“We have to do more research on the social media platforms. Study how [disinformation] flow[s], where does it come from, and which are the results,” he said in the speech to the European Union’s diplomatic service (EEAS).

Borrell singled out Twitter — and Musk as its owner — for naming and shaming — saying the EU is concerned about the news that Twitter is planning to restrict free access to its APIs which he warned would be “a serious step back from early commitments”.

“Early commitments” is likely a reference to Twitter being a signatory of the bloc’s Code of Practice on Online Disinformation from the get-go, back in 2018, when the Commission unveiled the voluntary initiative to encourage social media platforms to tackle the ‘fake news’ crisis (as it was still sometimes referred to at the time).

The EU has also banned some Russian state media — so, since March, Twitter has been legally required to ensure its platform does not host the Kremlin-backed media outlets Russia Today (RT) and Sputnik (plus any subsidiaries). Any failure to block the channels from distributing content in the EU would beach the ban.

Disinformation research has come on a lot since the bloc’s 2018 Disinformation Code was laid down — and plenty is understood about the types of techniques and tactics used to manipulate information and spread and amplify false perceptions to manipulate public opinion, erode trust in democratic institutions and interfere with free and fair elections.

But — as is the case with cybersecurity — threats to the integrity of information don’t stand still. And Borrell’s speech emphasized the need for Western democracies to do more to protect themselves against malicious foreign infoOps by increasing their investment in the study of information threats, with the commissioner also brandishing a copy of the EU’s first report on foreign information manipulation and threats — which he said showed “clear trends in the threats against our information space”.

A main finding of the report confirms “a new wave of disinformation techniques” — techniques which he said are being used by Russian to fabricate false images and videos in a bid to spread and amplify anti-Ukraine propaganda — as well as warning over what he described as a “worrisome” cooperation between threat actors like Russia and China.

“Diplomatic accounts and state-controlled channels manipulate perceptions about the European Union — blaming the West for all the consequences of the war in Ukraine and they amplify lies about military-led Western biolabs in Ukraine targeting its neighbours,” said Borrell, adding: “It is something that needs a response.

“We need to anticipate and deter such activities with concrete actions and measures. We need to continue supporting Ukraine… and finally we have to be more ambitious in building resilience to authoritarian regimes that try to create this disinformation and manipulate information.”

While propaganda as a tactic is nothing new in human history, Borrell said the threat attached to the manipulation of information has clearly been supercharged by the Internet and digital tools accelerating information distribution — arguing that liberal Western democracies therefore need to organize a commensurately serious response to such as fast-scaling disinformation risk.

Despite some fresh high-level attention to the issue from the EU — with the EU’s high commissioner seeking to build on existing efforts to raise awareness of Kremlin propaganda around the Ukraine war (such as the EU vs Disinformation campaign) —- it’s fair to say the bloc’s lawmakers still haven’t managed to find a convincing ‘front foot’ for effectively countering online disinformation.

The issue is a tricky one, given how stronger action may present an easy target for peddling bad faith claims that interventions to protect the integrity of information amount to censorship of freedom of expression. However a flood of manufactured disinformation is clearly the real threat to democratic free speech — as the weaponization and systematic mass manufacture of fake speech by authoritarian regimes means it’s real people’s opinions getting drowned out, as Borrell pointed out in the speech.

“We have seen artificial networks being created to spread [Kremlin] disinformation. They have been flooding the information space in order to avoid that any other voice can be heard any more. We have seen attempts to confuse and mislead people with an ever-changing narrative and versions of the event. The aim is to make that nobody believes anything, any report, anymore,” he argued.

“To make people believe that, well, at the end, everything is a lie — how can I distinguish the lies and the truth? And they want to erode trust in all media and our institutions. And I want to say that — today — we have to take this very seriously. It’s not just a matter for the specialist. It’s not just a matter for the people working on the information system. It’s something that the citizen has to be aware — and we have to address this politically at the highest possible level.”

The EU’s Code of Practice on Disinformation is still not legally binding — and, unsurprisingly, over its run the nearly five-year-old initiative has failed to stem various waves of propaganda, whether related to coronavirus disinformation or Ukraine.

The bloc has at least partially recognized this failure. Hence it announced a strengthened Code last year — and also, most notably, said it would link observance of the Code to compliance with the (legally binding) Digital Services Act (DSA) — which entered into force last year and will start to apply for a sub-set of larger platforms later this year (with the bulk of digital services expected to be compliant in 2024).

So EU lawmakers will be hoping for better times ahead if the DSA acts as a stick to force platforms to take countering disinformation more seriously. 

For now, though, the gap between the EU’s efforts to-date to clean up disinformation and what’s actually going on online looks massive.

And, well, the disconnect is getting embarrassing.

Thing is, on paper, Twitter under Musk remains a signatory to the EU’s Code. Yet, in practice, Twitter’s new owner has taken a series of decisions that very obviously run directly counter to the initiative — dismantling existing misleading information policies on COVID-19, for example, and creating instant chaos soon after taking over last year around account verification by letting anyone pay him to get a blue check mark and triggering a instant flood of malicious impersonation.

And for all their claims of being ahead of the curve on digital regulation, EU lawmakers have so far not been able to do much more than issue a few words of warning — telling Twitter to meet its “commitments”. Or warning it of the “huge work” needed if Twitter is to be in a position to comply with the DSA — whensoever it might apply to the platform.

Even more embarrassingly for the EU’s reputations as a digital rule setter, Musk has frequently been accused of personally amplifying Kremlin propaganda.

In one notorious instance last year this led to an intervention by Ukraine’s president himself, who tweeted a sarcastic poll — asking his followers to vote on which @elonmusk they “liked more”: The options offered being ‘one who supports Ukraine’ or ‘one who supports Russia’.

Needless to say the Ukraine supporting option won the poll. But Western democratic institutions continue to present like the massive losers on the disinformation issue — as they appear powerless to prevent the likes of Musk, who is now literally the CEO of Twitter, from wilfully (or, at best, credulously) spreading the Kremlin’s lies.

Borrell’s swipe today — at “Twitter’s owner” — is perhaps the closet the EU has come to calling Musk out. And, more broadly, to recognizing the need for a more systematic approach if the increasingly toxic threat of authoritarian disinformation is to be rooted out — and driven out.

Musk, meanwhile, continues to use the platform he borrowed billions of dollars to buy last year to amplify Kremlin disinformation.

Only this week it was left to Twitter users who haven’t already abandoned the platform because of how Musk is trashing it to call out another instance of the “Chief Twit” doing the Russian regime’s job for it — after he had responded credulously to some fake metrics purporting to list high rates of Ukraine casualties by uncritically remarking on a “tragic loss of life“.

Musk’s response on being called out for amplifying the Kremlin’s Ukraine war propaganda was not to delete his rubberstamping response to false claims — which had been posted by an account literally using a picture of the Russian president Vladimir Putin wearing a halo — but rather he suggested that Twitter’s Community Note feature could be used to “correct the numbers”.

As Twitter user David Rothschild quickly pointed out, you can’t correct a massive lie with a “small correction”. Doing that suggests you’re complicit in allowing a huge lie to continue circulating — one which paints a false narrative about Russia’s war in Ukraine that’s helpful to Russia’s efforts to undermine support for Ukraine continuing to fight Russia.

 

 

“We need more transparency and accountability, not less,” said Borrell today — as he called on Twitter and on Musk not to renege on earlier commitments to fight disinformation, adding: “I call on Twitter — and on its owner — to ensure that all obligations that they have taken will be honored.”

In the speech, he went on to urge those working on tackling information manipulation to get more organized — and come up with interoperable systems for sharing analysis and best practice — announcing that the EU would be doing more too by setting up a new central resource he said would be used for gathering info on disinformation threats and promoting the sharing of intelligence.

“This is a long-range fight. It’s not going to be won overnight,” he warned. “We have to have the tools. And this information sharing and analysis center will strengthen our responses and enable us to protect our democracies better.”

TechCrunch reached out to Twitter for a response to Borrell’s remarks — and to ask if it plans to reconsider ending free access to its APIs for researchers.

Following criticism that Musk’s plan to end free API access would likely kill off scores of useful Twitter bots, he recently announced an arbitrary reprieve for bots providing “good content that is free” — whatever “good” means in that context. But he appears to have been silent on the researcher API issue so far. (And on the threats to democratic interests posed by the sort of ‘bad content’ he has a penchant for spreading himself.)

At the time of writing Twitter had not responded to our questions about whether it will reconsider cutting off researchers in light of concerns about the impact doing so will have on the ability of experts to study disinformation. However another of Musk’s decisions on taking over Twitter was to liquidate its external comms department — and ignore media requests for comment — so we’re not expecting a response.

Twitter to end free access to its API in Elon Musk’s latest monetization push

Who’ll get the last laugh over Musk toying with Twitter’s veracity?

EU’s top diplomat fires warning shot at Elon Musk over Twitter disinformation by Natasha Lomas originally published on TechCrunch

Read More

Related Topics:
Continue Reading

International

‘Excess Mortality Skyrocketed’: Tucker Carlson and Dr. Pierre Kory Unpack ‘Criminal’ COVID Response

‘Excess Mortality Skyrocketed’: Tucker Carlson and Dr. Pierre Kory Unpack ‘Criminal’ COVID Response

As the global pandemic unfolded, government-funded…

Published

9 hours ago

on

March 14, 2024

By

'Excess Mortality Skyrocketed': Tucker Carlson and Dr. Pierre Kory Unpack 'Criminal' COVID Response

As the global pandemic unfolded, government-funded experimental vaccines were hastily developed for a virus which primarily killed the old and fat (and those with other obvious comorbidities), and an aggressive, global campaign to coerce billions into injecting them ensued.

Then there were the lockdowns - with some countries (New Zealand, for example) building internment camps for those who tested positive for Covid-19, and others such as China welding entire apartment buildings shut to trap people inside.

It was an egregious and unnecessary response to a virus that, while highly virulent, was survivable by the vast majority of the general population.

Oh, and the vaccines, which governments are still pushing, didn't work as advertised to the point where health officials changed the definition of "vaccine" multiple times.

Tucker Carlson recently sat down with Dr. Pierre Kory, a critical care specialist and vocal critic of vaccines. The two had a wide-ranging discussion, which included vaccine safety and efficacy, excess mortality, demographic impacts of the virus, big pharma, and the professional price Kory has paid for speaking out.

Keep reading below, or if you have roughly 50 minutes, watch it in its entirety for free on X:

"Do we have any real sense of what the cost, the physical cost to the country and world has been of those vaccines?" Carlson asked, kicking off the interview.

"I do think we have some understanding of the cost. I mean, I think, you know, you're aware of the work of of Ed Dowd, who's put together a team and looked, analytically at a lot of the epidemiologic data," Kory replied. "I mean, time with that vaccination rollout is when all of the numbers started going sideways, the excess mortality started to skyrocket."

When asked "what kind of death toll are we looking at?", Kory responded "...in 2023 alone, in the first nine months, we had what's called an excess mortality of 158,000 Americans," adding "But this is in 2023. I mean, we've  had Omicron now for two years, which is a mild variant. Not that many go to the hospital."

'Safe and Effective'

Tucker also asked Kory why the people who claimed the vaccine were "safe and effective" aren't being held criminally liable for abetting the "killing of all these Americans," to which Kory replied: "It’s my kind of belief, looking back, that [safe and effective] was a predetermined conclusion. There was no data to support that, but it was agreed upon that it would be presented as safe and effective."

Carlson and Kory then discussed the different segments of the population that experienced vaccine side effects, with Kory noting an "explosion in dying in the youngest and healthiest sectors of society," adding "And why did the employed fare far worse than those that weren't? And this particularly white collar, white collar, more than gray collar, more than blue collar."

Kory also said that Big Pharma is 'terrified' of Vitamin D because it "threatens the disease model." As journalist The Vigilant Fox notes on X, "Vitamin D showed about a 60% effectiveness against the incidence of COVID-19 in randomized control trials," and "showed about 40-50% effectiveness in reducing the incidence of COVID-19 in observational studies."

Professional costs

Kory - while risking professional suicide by speaking out, has undoubtedly helped save countless lives by advocating for alternate treatments such as Ivermectin.

Kory shared his own experiences of job loss and censorship, highlighting the challenges of advocating for a more nuanced understanding of vaccine safety in an environment often resistant to dissenting voices.

"I wrote a book called The War on Ivermectin and the the genesis of that book," he said, adding "Not only is my expertise on Ivermectin and my vast clinical experience, but and I tell the story before, but I got an email, during this journey from a guy named William B Grant, who's a professor out in California, and he wrote to me this email just one day, my life was going totally sideways because our protocols focused on Ivermectin. I was using a lot in my practice, as were tens of thousands of doctors around the world, to really good benefits. And I was getting attacked, hit jobs in the media, and he wrote me this email on and he said, Dear Dr. Kory, what they're doing to Ivermectin, they've been doing to vitamin D for decades..."

"And it's got five tactics. And these are the five tactics that all industries employ when science emerges, that's inconvenient to their interests. And so I'm just going to give you an example. Ivermectin science was extremely inconvenient to the interests of the pharmaceutical industrial complex. I mean, it threatened the vaccine campaign. It threatened vaccine hesitancy, which was public enemy number one. We know that, that everything, all the propaganda censorship was literally going after something called vaccine hesitancy."

Money makes the world go 'round

Carlson then hit on perhaps the most devious aspect of the relationship between drug companies and the medical establishment, and how special interests completely taint science to the point where public distrust of institutions has spiked in recent years.

"I think all of it starts at the level the medical journals," said Kory. "Because once you have something established in the medical journals as a, let's say, a proven fact or a generally accepted consensus, consensus comes out of the journals."

"I have dozens of rejection letters from investigators around the world who did good trials on ivermectin, tried to publish it. No thank you, no thank you, no thank you. And then the ones that do get in all purportedly prove that ivermectin didn't work," Kory continued.

"So and then when you look at the ones that actually got in and this is where like probably my biggest estrangement and why I don't recognize science and don't trust it anymore, is the trials that flew to publication in the top journals in the world were so brazenly manipulated and corrupted in the design and conduct in, many of us wrote about it. But they flew to publication, and then every time they were published, you saw these huge PR campaigns in the media. New York Times, Boston Globe, L.A. times, ivermectin doesn't work. Latest high quality, rigorous study says. I'm sitting here in my office watching these lies just ripple throughout the media sphere based on fraudulent studies published in the top journals. And that's that's that has changed. Now that's why I say I'm estranged and I don't know what to trust anymore."

Vaccine Injuries

Carlson asked Kory about his clinical experience with vaccine injuries.

"So how this is how I divide, this is just kind of my perception of vaccine injury is that when I use the term vaccine injury, I'm usually referring to what I call a single organ problem, like pericarditis, myocarditis, stroke, something like that. An autoimmune disease," he replied.

"What I specialize in my practice, is I treat patients with what we call a long Covid long vaxx. It's the same disease, just different triggers, right? One is triggered by Covid, the other one is triggered by the spike protein from the vaccine. Much more common is long vax. The only real differences between the two conditions is that the vaccinated are, on average, sicker and more disabled than the long Covids, with some pretty prominent exceptions to that."

Watch the entire interview above, and you can support Tucker Carlson's endeavors by joining the Tucker Carlson Network here...

Tyler Durden Thu, 03/14/2024 - 16:20

Read More

Continue Reading

International

Shakira’s net worth

After 12 albums, a tax evasion case, and now a towering bronze idol sculpted in her image, how much is Shakira worth more than 4 decades into her care…

Published

14 hours ago

on

March 14, 2024

By

Shakira’s considerable net worth is no surprise, given her massive popularity in Latin America, the U.S., and elsewhere. 

In fact, the belly-dancing contralto queen is the second-wealthiest Latin-America-born pop singer of all time after Gloria Estefan. (Interestingly, Estefan actually helped a young Shakira translate her breakout album “Laundry Service” into English, hugely propelling her stateside success.)

Since releasing her first record at age 13, Shakira has spent decades recording albums in both Spanish and English and performing all over the world. Over the course of her 40+ year career, she helped thrust Latin pop music into the American mainstream, paving the way for the subsequent success of massively popular modern acts like Karol G and Bad Bunny.

In late 2023, a 21-foot-tall bronze sculpture of Shakira, the barefoot belly dancer of Barranquilla, was unveiled at the city's waterfront. The statue was commissioned by the city's former mayor and other leadership.

Photo by STR/AFP via Getty Images

In December 2023, a 21-foot-tall beachside bronze statue of the “Hips Don’t Lie” singer was unveiled in her Colombian hometown of Barranquilla, making her a permanent fixture in the city’s skyline and cementing her legacy as one of Latin America’s most influential entertainers.

After 12 albums, a plethora of film and television appearances, a highly publicized tax evasion case, and now a towering bronze idol sculpted in her image, how much is Shakira worth? What does her income look like? And how does she spend her money?

Related: Dwayne 'The Rock' Johnson's net worth: How the new TKO Board Member built his wealth from $7

How much is Shakira worth?

In late 2023, Spanish sports and lifestyle publication Marca reported Shakira’s net worth at $400 million, citing Forbes as the figure’s source (although Forbes’ profile page for Shakira does not list a net worth — and didn’t when that article was published).

Most other sources list the singer’s wealth at an estimated $300 million, and almost all of these point to Celebrity Net Worth — a popular but dubious celebrity wealth estimation site — as the source for the figure.

A $300 million net worth would make Shakira the third-richest Latina pop star after Gloria Estefan ($500 million) and Jennifer Lopez ($400 million), and the second-richest Latin-America-born pop singer after Estefan (JLo is Puerto Rican but was born in New York).

Shakira’s income: How much does she make annually?

Entertainers like Shakira don’t have predictable paychecks like ordinary salaried professionals. Instead, annual take-home earnings vary quite a bit depending on each year’s album sales, royalties, film and television appearances, streaming revenue, and other sources of income. As one might expect, Shakira’s earnings have fluctuated quite a bit over the years.

From June 2018 to June 2019, for instance, Shakira was the 10th highest-earning female musician, grossing $35 million, according to Forbes. This wasn’t her first time gracing the top 10, though — back in 2012, she also landed the #10 spot, bringing in $20 million, according to Billboard.

In 2023, Billboard listed Shakira as the 16th-highest-grossing Latin artist of all time.

Shakira performed alongside producer Bizarrap during the 2023 Latin Grammy Awards Gala in Seville.

Photo By Maria Jose Lopez/Europa Press via Getty Images

How much does Shakira make from her concerts and tours?

A large part of Shakira’s wealth comes from her world tours, during which she sometimes sells out massive stadiums and arenas full of passionate fans eager to see her dance and sing live.

According to a 2020 report by Pollstar, she sold over 2.7 million tickets across 190 shows that grossed over $189 million between 2000 and 2020. This landed her the 19th spot on a list of female musicians ranked by touring revenue during that period. In 2023, Billboard reported a more modest touring revenue figure of $108.1 million across 120 shows.

In 2003, Shakira reportedly generated over $4 million from a single show on Valentine’s Day at Foro Sol in Mexico City. 15 years later, in 2018, Shakira grossed around $76.5 million from her El Dorado World Tour, according to Touring Data.

Related: RuPaul's net worth: Everything to know about the cultural icon and force behind 'Drag Race'

How much has Shakira made from her album sales?

According to a 2023 profile in Variety, Shakira has sold over 100 million records throughout her career. “Laundry Service,” the pop icon’s fifth studio album, was her most successful, selling over 13 million copies worldwide, according to TheRichest.

Exactly how much money Shakira has taken home from her album sales is unclear, but in 2008, it was widely reported that she signed a 10-year contract with LiveNation to the tune of between $70 and $100 million to release her subsequent albums and manage her tours.

Shakira and JLo co-headlined the 2020 Super Bowl Halftime Show in Florida.

Photo by Kevin Winter/Getty Images)

How much did Shakira make from her Super Bowl and World Cup performances?

Shakira co-wrote one of her biggest hits, “Waka Waka (This Time for Africa),” after FIFA selected her to create the official anthem for the 2010 World Cup in South Africa. She performed the song, along with several of her existing fan-favorite tracks, during the event’s opening ceremonies. TheThings reported in 2023 that the song generated $1.4 million in revenue, citing Popnable for the figure.

A decade later, 2020’s Superbowl halftime show featured Shakira and Jennifer Lopez as co-headliners with guest performances by Bad Bunny and J Balvin. The 14-minute performance was widely praised as a high-energy celebration of Latin music and dance, but as is typical for Super Bowl shows, neither Shakira nor JLo was compensated beyond expenses and production costs.

The exposure value that comes with performing in the Super Bowl Halftime Show, though, is significant. It is typically the most-watched television event in the U.S. each year, and in 2020, a 30-second Super Bowl ad spot cost between $5 and $6 million.

How much did Shakira make as a coach on “The Voice?”

Shakira served as a team coach on the popular singing competition program “The Voice” during the show’s fourth and sixth seasons. On the show, celebrity musicians coach up-and-coming amateurs in a team-based competition that eventually results in a single winner. In 2012, The Hollywood Reporter wrote that Shakira’s salary as a coach on “The Voice” was $12 million.

Related: John Cena's net worth: The wrestler-turned-actor's investments, businesses, and more

How does Shakira spend her money?

Shakira doesn’t just make a lot of money — she spends it, too. Like many wealthy entertainers, she’s purchased her share of luxuries, but Barranquilla’s barefoot belly dancer is also a prolific philanthropist, having donated tens of millions to charitable causes throughout her career.

Private island

Back in 2006, she teamed up with Roger Waters of Pink Floyd fame and Spanish singer Alejandro Sanz to purchase Bonds Cay, a 550-acre island in the Bahamas, which was listed for $16 million at the time.

Along with her two partners in the purchase, Shakira planned to develop the island to feature housing, hotels, and an artists’ retreat designed to host a revolving cast of artists-in-residence. This plan didn’t come to fruition, though, and as of this article’s last update, the island was once again for sale on Vladi Private Islands.

Real estate and vehicles

Like most wealthy celebs, Shakira’s portfolio of high-end playthings also features an array of luxury properties and vehicles, including a home in Barcelona, a villa in Cyprus, a Miami mansion, and a rotating cast of Mercedes-Benz vehicles.

Philanthropy and charity

Shakira doesn’t just spend her massive wealth on herself; the “Queen of Latin Music” is also a dedicated philanthropist and regularly donates portions of her earnings to the Fundación Pies Descalzos, or “Barefoot Foundation,” a charity she founded in 1997 to “improve the education and social development of children in Colombia, which has suffered decades of conflict.” The foundation focuses on providing meals for children and building and improving educational infrastructure in Shakira’s hometown of Barranquilla as well as four other Colombian communities.

In addition to her efforts with the Fundación Pies Descalzos, Shakira has made a number of other notable donations over the years. In 2007, she diverted a whopping $40 million of her wealth to help rebuild community infrastructure in Peru and Nicaragua in the wake of a devastating 8.0 magnitude earthquake. Later, during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, Shakira donated a large supply of N95 masks for healthcare workers and ventilators for hospital patients to her hometown of Barranquilla.

Back in 2010, the UN honored Shakira with a medal to recognize her dedication to social justice, at which time the Director General of the International Labour Organization described her as a “true ambassador for children and young people.”

On November 20, 2023 (which was supposed to be her first day of trial), Shakira reached a deal with the prosecution that resulted in a three-year suspended sentence and around $8 million in fines.

Photo by Adria Puig/Anadolu via Getty Images

Shakira’s tax fraud scandal: How much did she pay?

In 2018, prosecutors in Spain initiated a tax evasion case against Shakira, alleging she lived primarily in Spain from 2012 to 2014 and therefore failed to pay around $14.4 million in taxes to the Spanish government. Spanish law requires anyone who is “domiciled” (i.e., living primarily) in Spain for more than half of the year to pay income taxes.

During the period in question, Shakira listed the Bahamas as her primary residence but did spend some time in Spain, as she was dating Gerard Piqué, a professional footballer and Spanish citizen. The couple’s first son, Milan, was also born in Barcelona during this period. 

Shakira maintained that she spent far fewer than 183 days per year in Spain during each of the years in question. In an interview with Elle Magazine, the pop star opined that “Spanish tax authorities saw that I was dating a Spanish citizen and started to salivate. It's clear they wanted to go after that money no matter what."

Prosecutors in the case sought a fine of almost $26 million and a possible eight-year prison stint, but in November of 2023, Shakira took a deal to close the case, accepting a fine of around $8 million and a three-year suspended sentence to avoid going to trial. In reference to her decision to take the deal, Shakira stated, "While I was determined to defend my innocence in a trial that my lawyers were confident would have ruled in my favour [had the trial proceeded], I have made the decision to finally resolve this matter with the best interest of my kids at heart who do not want to see their mom sacrifice her personal well-being in this fight."

How much did the Shakira statue in Barranquilla cost?

In late 2023, a 21-foot-tall bronze likeness of Shakira was unveiled on a waterfront promenade in Barranquilla. The city’s then-mayor, Jaime Pumarejo, commissioned Colombian sculptor Yino Márquez to create the statue of the city’s treasured pop icon, along with a sculpture of the city’s coat of arms.

According to the New York Times, the two sculptures cost the city the equivalent of around $180,000. A plaque at the statue’s base reads, “A heart that composes, hips that don’t lie, an unmatched talent, a voice that moves the masses and bare feet that march for the good of children and humanity.” 

Related: Taylor Swift net worth: The most successful entertainer joins the billionaire's club

Read More

Continue Reading

International

Delta Air Lines adds a new route travelers have been asking for

The new Delta seasonal flight to the popular destination will run daily on a Boeing 767-300.

Published

14 hours ago

on

March 14, 2024

By

Those who have tried to book a flight from North America to Europe in the summer of 2023 know just how high travel demand to the continent has spiked.

At 2.93 billion, visitors to the countries making up the European Union had finally reached pre-pandemic levels last year while North Americans in particular were booking trips to both large metropolises such as Paris and Milan as well as smaller cities growing increasingly popular among tourists.

Related: A popular European city is introducing the highest 'tourist tax' yet

As a result, U.S.-based airlines have been re-evaluating their networks to add more direct routes to smaller European destinations that most travelers would have previously needed to reach by train or transfer flight with a local airline.

The new flight will take place on a Boeing 767-300.

Shutterstock

Delta Air Lines: ‘Glad to offer customers increased choice…’

By the end of March, Delta Air Lines  (DAL)  will be restarting its route between New York’s JFK and Marco Polo International Airport in Venice as well as launching two new flights to Venice from Atlanta. One will start running this month while the other will be added during peak demand in the summer.

More Travel:

“As one of the most beautiful cities in the world, Venice is hugely popular with U.S. travelers, and our flights bring valuable tourism and trade opportunities to the city and the region as well as unrivalled opportunities for Venetians looking to explore destinations across the Americas,” Delta’s SVP for Europe Matteo Curcio said in a statement. “We’re glad to offer customers increased choice this summer with flights from New York and additional service from Atlanta.”

The JFK-Venice flight will run on a Boeing 767-300  (BA)  and have 216 seats including higher classes such as Delta One, Delta Premium Select and Delta Comfort Plus.

Delta offers these features on the new flight

Both the New York and Atlanta flights are seasonal routes that will be pulled out of service in October. Both will run daily while the first route will depart New York at 8:55 p.m. and arrive in Venice at 10:15 a.m. local time on the way there, while leaving Venice at 12:15 p.m. to arrive at JFK at 5:05 p.m. on the way back.

According to Delta, this will bring its service to 17 flights from different U.S. cities to Venice during the peak summer period. As with most Delta flights at this point, passengers in all fare classes will have access to free Wi-Fi during the flight.

Those flying in Delta’s highest class or with access through airline status or a credit card will also be able to use the new Delta lounge that is part of the airline’s $12 billion terminal renovation and is slated to open to travelers in the coming months. The space will take up more than 40,000 square feet and have an outdoor terrace.

“Delta One customers can stretch out in a lie-flat seat and enjoy premium amenities like plush bedding made from recycled plastic bottles, more beverage options, and a seasonal chef-curated four-course meal,” Delta said of the new route. “[…] All customers can enjoy a wide selection of in-flight entertainment options and stay connected with Wi-Fi and enjoy free mobile messaging.”

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending