Over the decades when the richest Americans took wealth and income away from the non-rich 90%, forcing them down into poverty, the intermediate group of not-quite-rich (around 10%) have maintained their comfortable status by building barriers to social mobility between them and the 90%.

The article refers to the "9.9%", but that is unwarranted precision. The line between that group and the 90% is not a sharp one; we cannot say whether they are 10%, 9.9%, or 10.1% of the population.

The article's terminology is slightly skewed from historical precedent. The term "aristocracy" should refer to the richest .1%. The proper term for the comfortable 10% is "gentry".

The Senate Judiciary committee says that the NRA funneled money from Russia to support the cheater's campaign.

Comcast makes new customers sign up for an "installation", for which it charges a fee, even if the house already has a connection and the customer has per own modem. Comcast claims the customer can get a refund for this, but it doesn't tell customers that.

If your congresscritter votes against network neutrality, it's because perse is getting paid by this company and/or a few others like it.

The Washington Post uses the term "far left" for candidates that support policies such as taxing the rich more, single-payer medical care, legalizing marijuana.

Since most American's support those policies, by definition the center includes them. They should be called "center-left policies".

As for the fictional "center" of the establishment, that's right-wing.

African countries need to beware of letting foreign companies dominate them by getting control of the citizens' data.

People should be allowed to access foreign social networks and services, so as to keep their data away from their own government. However, domestic social networks and services should be required to protect their data from access by foreign governments.

Even better, these services should protect the data from the local government _as well_.