Global North and South have clear definitions, but don't really match how we currently separate the different blocks.
For instance if we're addressing the amount of research on the autism spectrum or depression, I don't expect Russia or Australia to be significantly ahead of China or Brazil.
The same way putting Portugal and Brazil in different groups, but the UK and Australia in the same doesn't feel helpful.
There are many points in the article looking at colonization and Anglophony, these historical or cultural distinctions could be a better split perhaps IMHO. Or just embrace the complexity and not reuse any specific concept to group the countries they want to focus on.
They are deliberately using an inflammatory title and too-big terms for the constituencies they are describing. If they define the Global North as the United States and the UK, they should just say that. If by the Global South they mean India, they should just say that.
TFA goes with "Global North—mainly the United Kingdom and the United States", so they're just putting the US and UK front and center without excluding the other countries of the usual split [0]. In particular they don't care to do the same spotlighting for the Global South, which makes us fallback to the traditional split to decide which countries fall where.
For instance if we're addressing the amount of research on the autism spectrum or depression, I don't expect Russia or Australia to be significantly ahead of China or Brazil.
The same way putting Portugal and Brazil in different groups, but the UK and Australia in the same doesn't feel helpful.
There are many points in the article looking at colonization and Anglophony, these historical or cultural distinctions could be a better split perhaps IMHO. Or just embrace the complexity and not reuse any specific concept to group the countries they want to focus on.