Panic Grips Lebanon: Explosions of Wireless Devices Unleash Chaos Amid Rising Tensions with Israel

In a terrifying and unprecedented turn of events, Lebanon is reeling from a series of deadly explosions that have shattered lives and left a nation on edge. Thousands of Lebanese civilians have been injured, and many more are gripped by fear as electronic devices—including pagers and handheld radios—continue to detonate without warning. What began as routine wireless communication equipment is now a deadly weapon, leaving a trail of death and destruction in its wake.

The sheer scale of this crisis has sent shockwaves through the region, raising troubling questions about what comes next. In a country already fraught with instability, one unnerving question seems to be on everyone’s mind: “What will explode tomorrow? Cigarette lighters? Mobile phones?”

Over 1,000 Hezbollah Operatives Injured in Coordinated Pager Attacks

The panic began on Tuesday when thousands of pagers, reportedly used by Hezbollah operatives, simultaneously exploded across Lebanon and Syria. The coordinated detonation killed 12 people in Lebanon and left over 2,700 injured, with unconfirmed reports of Iranian Revolutionary Guards among the victims in Syria. According to reports, these pagers—traced back to a Taiwanese company—were covertly modified to carry explosives.

Shady Pager Manufacturer BAC Goes Dark Amid Lebanon Explosion Scandal

The terror escalated on Wednesday when hundreds of walkie-talkies, much larger and more powerful than the pagers, exploded. The second wave of attacks claimed an additional 20 lives and left 450 injured. Unlike the pagers, the heavier walkie-talkies created intense fires, further complicating rescue efforts. The explosions sparked chaos, especially as hospitals struggled to manage the flood of patients suffering from severe burns, lacerations, and amputations.

A doctor outside a Beirut hospital likened the wounds to those caused by rockets, describing patients arriving with horrific facial injuries, many of whom were unable to speak or see. “It’s like something out of a nightmare,” said Dr. Elias Warak, a leading ophthalmologist, recounting surgeries that lasted for hours as medical teams raced to save people’s sight and lives.

Full-Scale War with Hezbollah Now Closer Than Ever – What Happens Next?

For ordinary Lebanese citizens, the fear is palpable. Reports of walkie-talkies and radios detonating have spurred rumors that other common devices might be next. “Maybe tomorrow cigarette lighters will explode?” one witness wondered aloud, expressing the growing anxiety that even the most mundane objects could turn lethal. Already, residents are scrambling to discard any wireless or electronic devices, tossing phones, radios, and even solar-powered systems in the hopes of avoiding the next catastrophe.

Across Lebanon, a haunting unease has settled over the population. The country, no stranger to war and conflict, now faces a new kind of terror—one that comes without warning and strikes in the most unexpected ways. Media outlets across the globe are captivated by the unfolding crisis, with bold headlines like “Beep Beep Boom” and “Tech War Spreads” capturing the chilling reality of the situation. The fear is pervasive, and there seems to be no clear end in sight.

Unsurprisingly, Hezbollah has attributed the devastating attacks to Israel, accusing the Israeli military of orchestrating the explosions as part of its ongoing conflict with the Lebanese militia. While Israel has not officially claimed responsibility, the attacks come amid rising tensions on the northern front. Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant and IDF Chief of Staff Herzi Halevi have both hinted at a “new phase” in their military operations, signaling that Israel may be stepping up its efforts to neutralize Hezbollah.

Explosive Intel: How Mossad and IDF Sabotaged Hezbollah’s Communication Devices in Bold Operation

The timing of the explosions is also critical. Just days before, the Israeli government was reportedly preparing for a major escalation in the ongoing conflict. Following nearly a year of fighting along Israel’s northern border, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced that Israel could no longer tolerate the status quo. In back-to-back meetings with U.S. officials and White House special Middle East envoy Amos Hochstein, both Netanyahu and Gallant emphasized the need for “military action” to ensure the safe return of Israeli citizens displaced by Hezbollah’s rocket fire.

It appears that the explosions were a calculated move in this broader military campaign. Reports suggest that Israeli intelligence identified a vulnerability in Hezbollah’s communications network, allowing them to sabotage the very devices Hezbollah operatives rely on. The destruction of thousands of Hezbollah pagers and walkie-talkies could severely impair the militia’s operational capabilities, effectively dealing a major blow to its command structure. However, the human cost has been staggering, with many civilians also caught in the deadly blasts.

As the Lebanese people grapple with the fallout of the attacks, harrowing personal stories are emerging from the devastation. Hussein Awada, a 54-year-old resident of Beirut, recounted a horrifying incident he witnessed when a man was helping clear a path for ambulances. “He was trying to move the injured to safety when the walkie-talkie in his hand just exploded,” Awada said. “It took seconds. It blew up in his hands. Maybe lighters will explode tomorrow?”

Others shared similar stories of chaos and destruction. Ali, a 22-year-old trader, described the moment when the pagers first began to explode. “I thought it was a terrorist attack. People were throwing their phones away, thinking they would explode too. I saw a man whose face was cut in half. His eyes were popping out, and blood was everywhere. It was something you only see in the movies.”

NEW ATTACK: After Pager Blasts, Walkie-talkies Used by Hezbollah Explode in Lebanon

Doctors in hospitals across the country are also speaking out about the unprecedented scale of the injuries. In one hospital, Dr. Elias Jarade, a member of parliament and a prominent ophthalmologist, described the frantic efforts to save patients who had been blinded by the blasts. “Some of these surgeries lasted up to five hours. We’re seeing injuries we’ve never dealt with before,” he said.

Lebanon’s crisis is no longer just a national issue—it’s a regional powder keg. Hezbollah’s deep ties to Iran and its growing influence in Syria complicate the already volatile dynamics of the Middle East. And with Israel appearing to intensify its military efforts, the situation could spiral out of control at any moment.

The international community is watching closely, with major world powers expressing concern over the escalating violence. The United Nations has called for restraint, while Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates have voiced support for Lebanon’s sovereignty. Yet, as more explosions rock the country, Lebanon’s leaders are facing immense pressure to stabilize the situation before it spirals into a broader conflict.

In the coming days, Hezbollah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah is expected to deliver a highly anticipated address. It remains unclear how Hezbollah will respond to the devastating attacks or whether Israel will continue its offensive. For now, the Lebanese people are left to navigate a new kind of terror—one that could strike at any moment, with no warning, and no clear solution in sight.

As Lebanon stands on the edge of a precipice, one thing is certain: the country will never be the same again. Whether this crisis leads to further conflict or forces a breakthrough in the region’s power dynamics, the stakes have never been higher.

Despite internal turmoil and global competition, Intel secures a massive government grant to bolster U.S. chip production for defense purposes.

Intel is reportedly on the brink of securing a monumental $3.5 billion in government grants to establish advanced chip manufacturing facilities. This substantial funding, reported by Bloomberg, is part of a broader U.S. initiative aimed at reducing reliance on foreign chip producers and boosting local production capabilities.

The agreement, which could be officially announced within days, will see Intel expand its operations with new facilities across multiple U.S. states, including a major plant in Arizona. This project is envisioned to enhance the production of cutting-edge computer chips for both civilian and military applications, reinforcing the U.S. Department of Defense’s technological edge.

Intel’s anticipated windfall comes on top of the $8.5 billion in grants and $11 billion in loans it received earlier this year under the CHIPS and Science Act. This legislation, championed by President Joe Biden, was designed to revitalize the American semiconductor industry and reduce dependency on Asian manufacturers.

Yet, Intel’s path to this financial boon has not been without obstacles. The selection process was fraught with pressure from rival chip makers, concerns about over-reliance on a single company, and bureaucratic delays that almost threatened to trim Intel’s grant. Despite these challenges, Intel emerged as the frontrunner, a testament to its strategic positioning in the semiconductor market.

The decision to funnel billions into Intel is especially notable given the company’s current struggles. August saw Intel grappling with disappointing second-quarter results and announcing a drastic 15% reduction in its workforce. The company’s board has been deliberating severe measures to stabilize its position, including pausing costly factory projects, divesting from divisions like Mobileye, and even considering a split of its core operations.

Amidst these financial pressures and strategic recalibrations, Intel’s commitment to expanding domestic chip production reflects a critical shift in U.S. defense and technology policy. The grants not only underscore the government’s push to strengthen national security but also highlight the precarious balancing act between fostering innovation and managing corporate instability.

Intel’s substantial government funding marks a pivotal moment in the semiconductor sector, potentially setting a precedent for future public-private partnerships aimed at fortifying American technological capabilities. As the announcement looms, the industry will be watching closely to see how Intel navigates its dual challenge of managing its internal turmoil while leading a transformative initiative for U.S. military tech.

A Deep Dive into the Selective Coverage and Underlying Agendas of Beijing and Moscow’s Media Outlets

In the recent presidential debate between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump, a curious pattern emerged: while the debate generated significant buzz across the United States and Europe, it barely registered on the radar of Beijing and Moscow’s state-run media. This quiet response stands in stark contrast to the extensive coverage of the previous debate between Joe Biden and Trump, which was a focal point for Chinese and Russian outlets alike.

Chinese media’s subdued coverage of the Harris-Trump debate is telling. The extensive, albeit critical, coverage of Biden’s debate performance in June showcased the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) strategy of amplifying perceived democratic failures. Biden’s stumble was leveraged to cast doubt on the efficacy of democratic governance, a recurring theme in Chinese state media. Yet, with Harris and Trump, the coverage was conspicuously muted.

China media analysts suggest that this shift may be due to the CCP’s cautious approach to evolving foreign policy narratives. “China is likely still calibrating its stance following Biden’s abrupt policy shifts,” says Kenton Thibaut, a senior resident China fellow at the Atlantic Council’s Digital Forensic Research Lab. Thibaut points out that the reduced coverage reflects a cautious, fact-based reporting style until the CCP can formulate a coherent narrative.

Another dimension of this media strategy involves China’s discomfort with democratic successes. Anne-Marie Brady, a professor of Chinese politics, and Jonathan Hassid, an Iowa State University professor, both highlight how Chinese media tend to spotlight democratic failures while downplaying successes. In contrast, a more positive portrayal of democratic processes might not align with the CCP’s narrative, which often focuses on criticizing the flaws of Western democracies.

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mao Ning’s dismissal of the debate as “the United States’ own affairs” further underscores this hands-off approach, revealing Beijing’s preference to sidestep direct engagement with U.S. election matters.

Similarly, Russian state media has adopted a subtle but strategic approach. According to Darren Linvill, co-director of Clemson University’s Media Forensics Hub, Russian outlets like RT and Sputnik have been cautious with their coverage. While avoiding overt criticism, these outlets subtly downplay Harris and highlight Trump. For instance, some articles downplayed Harris’s performance, while others indulged in less direct commentary, such as suggestions about her “imposter syndrome.”

This restrained yet pointed coverage aligns with Moscow’s known preference for Trump, reflecting Russia’s strategic interests in fostering divisive narratives within the U.S. Recent accusations from the U.S. Justice Department about Russian operatives attempting to influence American media further emphasize the ongoing manipulation of narratives by Moscow.

The under-the-radar coverage by both Chinese and Russian media illustrates a broader strategy: avoiding direct engagement while subtly shaping global perceptions. The post-debate period is crucial for monitoring how these narratives evolve, particularly as information and disinformation campaigns ramp up.

As the election cycle continues, the strategic omissions and selective portrayals by Beijing and Moscow underscore the complexities of international media influence. This selective coverage not only highlights their biases but also serves as a reminder of the broader geopolitical chess game being played on the global stage.

AI’s Battlefield: The Race to Control Military’s New Frontier

The world is on the brink of a high-stakes showdown over artificial intelligence (AI) in warfare, with the specter of a new arms race looming large. The 2020s have ushered in an era of unprecedented transformation, where AI’s dual-use nature—serving both civilian and military purposes—has sparked urgent debates about global governance. As nations scramble to integrate AI into their defense systems, the quest to regulate this powerful technology has never been more critical—or more contentious.

The integration of AI into military operations is akin to the advent of nuclear weapons, raising fears of doomsday scenarios and global instability. The urgency for a unified framework to govern military AI is palpable, as countries race to secure their technological edge. Despite some progress, such as the European Union’s AI Act and a UN General Assembly resolution, these initiatives fall short of addressing the rapid pace of AI development in warfare.

Since 2023, two significant frameworks have emerged: the REAIM Summit and the U.S.-led Political Declaration. The REAIM Summit, a Dutch-South Korean initiative, represents a bottom-up approach. It’s a sprawling attempt to gather 2,000 participants from 100 countries to debate and shape norms for military AI. The “Call to Action” from this summit aims to create a comprehensive framework through regional workshops and further discussions in Seoul in 2024. Its inclusive stance is meant to foster global collaboration but could lead to slow, fragmented progress.

In contrast, the U.S. Political Declaration is a top-down approach, directly addressing sovereign states. Launched in February 2024, it’s backed by 54 countries, including nearly all EU member states. The declaration outlines ten measures and six pledges to regulate military AI. Yet, its effectiveness is in question, given potential shifts in U.S. leadership and the geopolitical tensions with China and Russia. Both superpowers view AI as a game-changer, with Russia accelerating its AI efforts despite ongoing conflict in Ukraine, and China eyeing AI as a strategic asset in its regional ambitions.

The challenge of achieving a universally agreed-upon convention is daunting. The rapid evolution of AI outpaces traditional arms control measures, making prolonged negotiations seem futile. While the REAIM Summit provides a platform for broader engagement, the Political Declaration serves as a pragmatic, albeit less ambitious, attempt to set international norms. However, the lack of support from major powers and the Global South complicates the process.

Europe, despite lagging behind the U.S., China, and Russia in military AI, has a pivotal role to play. The EU’s Defence Innovation Office in Kiev highlights its commitment to understanding and leveraging military AI insights. For Europe, the stakes are high. By aligning with REAIM and advocating for the Political Declaration, Europe could play a crucial role in shaping a global governance framework for military AI, potentially tempering the rise of a new arms race.

As the global community grapples with the implications of military AI, the urgency for effective regulation is undeniable. Europe must lead the charge in making military AI governance a priority, balancing the ambitions of the REAIM Summit with the practicalities of the Political Declaration. The question remains: can the world’s powers find common ground before the technology they seek to control accelerates beyond their grasp?

Congress’s War on China: Biotech, Drones, and Farmland Under Siege

US Offers $10 Million Reward For Info on Russian Hackers

Australia Accuses China of Cyber Espionage

How Media Monitoring Africa’s New Tool Could Revolutionize Safety—and Raise Free Speech Concerns

Media Monitoring Africa (MMA) is rolling out an artificial intelligence tool aimed at detecting and flagging social media content that could incite violence. The initiative, named Insights into Incitement (I3), represents a significant leap in how technology is harnessed to prevent societal unrest—yet it raises profound questions about its implications for free speech.

I3 is designed to sift through an array of text data, including social media posts, news articles, and political commentaries, to identify and assess comments that might incite violence. It uses a sophisticated algorithm to rank the risk of these posts, marking them in red, yellow, or green based on their potential danger. The tool is accompanied by an online dashboard, offering a transparent, searchable interface for monitoring these flagged contents.

This initiative emerged from the aftermath of the severe violence that rocked South Africa’s KwaZulu-Natal and Gauteng provinces in 2021, triggered by former President Jacob Zuma’s imprisonment. The ensuing riots, which resulted in 300 deaths and substantial property damage, exposed the role social media played in fueling unrest. MMA’s response aims to preempt such crises by targeting the incendiary content that sparks these disturbances.

At its core, I3 seeks to address the rising threats faced by minorities and vulnerable groups, including women, who are often targeted by hate-fueled rhetoric. “At particular risk are minorities, fueled by xeno- and Afrophobia as well as vulnerable groups,” the project’s designers note.

Yet, as the technology progresses, so does the potential for controversy. The tool’s training involves recognizing and flagging inciting phrases—a process that, while rigorous, might also capture benign discussions or legitimate dissent. Critics argue that such systems could inadvertently stifle free speech if not carefully managed.

The expansion of AI tools like I3 across Africa also presents a layer of irony. As AI continues to be deployed to identify and combat disinformation, there is a risk that the very technology could be misused to propagate false or harmful narratives. Recent reports, such as one from Freedom House, highlight the dual-edged nature of AI in disinformation: while it can combat fake news, it also has the potential to generate or amplify it.

South African attorney and tech law expert Zinhle Novazi, who lectures at Stellenbosch University, supports the tool’s intent but also raises concerns. On LinkedIn, Novazi emphasized that while I3 can significantly reduce response times to potential threats, ensuring the tool does not infringe on legitimate speech is crucial. “The challenge lies in ensuring that the tool is used responsibly and does not infringe upon legitimate expressions of opinion or dissent,” she cautions.

As South Africa pioneers this AI-driven approach to public safety, the debate is just beginning. The balance between leveraging technology for security and safeguarding freedoms will be critical as I3 and similar tools become integral to managing the digital landscape. This innovation promises to enhance safety, but it also underscores the need for rigorous oversight to prevent potential overreach and protect democratic principles.

Mallory Stewart’s Visit Highlights Commitment to Safe AI Integration in Africa

Mallory Stewart, Assistant Secretary of State for the Bureau of Arms Control, Deterrence and Stability, visited Nigeria this week to engage with local and regional authorities on the responsible use of artificial intelligence (AI) in military operations. The visit marks a significant step in the United States’ efforts to enhance security cooperation in Africa, reflecting a broader commitment to international norms and ethical considerations in military technology.

Stewart’s two-day visit included discussions with Nigerian officials and members of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS). The meetings focused on the integration of AI in military contexts, emphasizing adherence to international laws and addressing inherent human biases in AI systems.

“We’ve learned the hard way that AI systems can reflect human biases, which may lead to misinformation being provided to decision-makers,” Stewart said. “Our goal is to collaborate with as many countries as possible that are integrating AI into their military operations, to minimize associated risks.”

The U.S. government’s initiative includes working with 55 nations, including those in Africa, to establish frameworks for the responsible use of military AI. This is part of a broader effort to enhance global security and ethical standards in technological advancements.

Nigeria, along with other African nations, is actively exploring the use of AI in its military operations. The country has faced significant security challenges, with sub-Saharan Africa identified as a terrorism hotspot in the Global Terrorism Index report, accounting for nearly 60% of terror-related deaths. While it remains unclear if terror groups are using AI, Nigeria is pushing for AI integration to improve its security capabilities.

Security analyst Kabiru Adamu from Beacon Consulting noted the potential benefits of AI in military operations. “Given the U.S.’s advanced technological capacity, their support could be invaluable for Nigeria, especially if they can tailor their assistance to the unique aspects of Nigeria’s security landscape,” Adamu said. He highlighted the need for adequate supporting infrastructure, such as reliable power sources, to effectively implement AI technologies.

Senator Iroegbu, founder of Global Sentinel online magazine, also emphasized the need for cautious and strategic implementation of AI. “While AI can reduce the number of troops needed and improve intelligence gathering, it’s crucial for Nigeria to develop its own policies and strategies for AI. Increased awareness and policy development are essential,” Iroegbu said.

In June, African ministers endorsed a landmark continental AI strategy aimed at advancing Africa’s digital future. Last week, the African Union approved the adoption of AI across public and private sectors in member states, including Nigeria. This marks a significant step in integrating AI into broader development and security strategies across the continent.

Stewart’s visit underscores the importance of international collaboration and responsible AI practices as African nations navigate the complex landscape of military technology and regional security challenges.

9th Circuit Overturns Dismissal, Orders Reassessment of User Consent and Data Collection Practices

In a significant legal development, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has revived a class action lawsuit against Google, scrutinizing the company’s data collection practices related to its Chrome browser. The court’s ruling on Tuesday overturns a previous dismissal and mandates a closer examination of whether Google collected personal information without user consent.

The lawsuit, brought by Google Chrome users, alleges that the tech giant collected their personal data despite their decision not to synchronize their browsers with their Google accounts. The plaintiffs argue that Google’s privacy disclosures were misleading, suggesting that users could browse privately without their data being collected.

The 9th Circuit’s decision reflects a 3-0 vote, led by Circuit Judge Milan Smith, who criticized the lower court’s approach. Judge Smith highlighted that the lower court had incorrectly applied Google’s general privacy policy, rather than focusing on the specific promises made about Chrome’s privacy features.

Google had previously settled a separate lawsuit concerning Chrome’s “Incognito” mode, agreeing to destroy billions of records and face individual lawsuits from users who believed their private browsing sessions were being tracked. Despite this settlement, the revived class action addresses additional concerns about data collection in non-synced Chrome browsers.

The plaintiffs’ legal representative, Matthew Wessler, expressed satisfaction with the appellate court’s decision, anticipating a trial to further explore the issues raised. The class action now includes Chrome users from July 27, 2016, who opted not to sync their browsers with Google accounts.

Google responded to the ruling by defending its practices, stating, “We disagree with this ruling and are confident the facts of the case are on our side.” The company emphasized that Chrome Sync is designed to enhance user experience across devices and that users have clear privacy controls over their data.

The appeals court’s decision challenges the interpretation that Google’s general privacy policy covers all aspects of data collection. Judge Smith pointed out that Google’s promotional materials for Chrome implied that certain information would not be transmitted unless users activated the sync feature. This implication could lead reasonable users to believe their data was not being collected in the way alleged by the plaintiffs.

The case has been remanded to U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers in Oakland, California, who initially dismissed the lawsuit in December 2022. The decision underscores ongoing concerns about privacy and consent in digital services, particularly regarding how tech companies handle user data.

Following the Incognito mode settlement, many users have pursued individual lawsuits in California courts. The revived class action will now examine broader allegations of privacy violations in Google’s Chrome browser.

Meta Unleashes Monetization for Kenyan Creators in a Controversial Bid to Dominate Africa’s Digital Landscape

Meta has shaken the digital landscape, unveiling monetization features that finally allow Kenyan creators to earn from their short-form videos on Facebook. This audacious move by the social media giant promises to disrupt the status quo and ignite a new wave of creativity across Africa. But what does it really mean for the vibrant Kenyan creator community and the global market?

In a much-anticipated announcement, Meta introduced two lucrative monetization options: in-stream ads that play before, during, or after videos, and ads on reels that accompany short clips. Kenya now joins an exclusive club of 12 African countries where Meta shares ad revenue with creators, including Egypt, Nigeria, Rwanda, Ghana, and the Seychelles.

“This expansion will empower eligible creators in the vibrant creative industry in Kenya to earn money, whilst setting the bar high for creativity across the world and making Meta’s family of apps the one-stop-shop for all creators,” declared Moon Baz, Meta’s global partnerships lead for Africa, the Middle East, and Turkey.

The journey to extend Meta’s monetization capabilities to Kenya began in March when Nick Clegg, Meta’s President of Global Affairs, visited the country and met with President William Ruto. This strategic engagement laid the groundwork for the features initially planned to roll out by June on both Facebook and Instagram. However, Instagram creators will have to wait longer as the announcement only covered Facebook, raising eyebrows and sparking speculation about Meta’s true intentions.

To qualify for this new revenue stream, creators must have at least 5,000 followers on Facebook and accumulate over 60,000 minutes of watch time in the past two months. These stringent criteria ensure that only the most dedicated and popular creators reap the benefits, pushing others to elevate their game.

Facebook reigns supreme as the most popular social media platform in Kenya, boasting usage by at least 52% of Kenyans aged 15 and above, according to the latest statistics from the Communications Authority of Kenya. WhatsApp follows closely, used by 48.5% of the population, while Instagram lags at 11.5%. The introduction of these monetization features on Facebook, and not Instagram, hints at Meta’s strategic prioritization, but leaves Instagram creators in suspense.

Currently, only YouTube and X (formerly Twitter) share ad revenue with creators, making Meta’s move a potential game-changer. This development is bound to stir controversy, with some viewing it as a necessary evolution, while others might see it as a calculated ploy to tighten Meta’s grip on Africa’s digital economy.

Meta’s decision to monetize short-form videos in Kenya is a bold statement. It underscores the company’s recognition of the continent’s untapped potential and its creators’ burgeoning talent. But it also raises questions about the broader implications for competition, content diversity, and the financial dynamics within the creator economy.

As Kenyan creators begin to harness these new tools, the digital world watches with bated breath. Will this lead to an explosion of creative content and financial independence for African creators, or is it a strategic maneuver by Meta to monopolize Africa’s digital narrative?

One thing is certain: the stakes have never been higher. Meta’s ambitious move has set the stage for a dramatic shift in how content is created, consumed, and monetized in Kenya and beyond. The impact of this decision will ripple across the digital landscape, forever altering the fabric of Africa’s creative economy.