SCROLL NEWS / DISCOVERY
Search headlines
Find the stories shaping the conversation.
Results for " dubious " 31 found 🔀 AI-powered Shuffle
Sign in to save shuffle history.
EDITORIAL: Triage — or last rites
If only the new Governor’s Competitiveness Council, launched this week, could cure what ails Colorado’s slumping business climate. Coming so late in the game — after lame-duck Gov. Jared Polis’ last legislative session — the council’s prospects for honing the state’s dulled competitive edge seem dubious. Not because the impressive lineup of respected Colorado business […]
British politics is hooked on flashy fake numbers – and the AI investment debacle proves it
A claim that the UK is attracting billions of pounds in AI investment has been debunked. That’s no surprise when our establishment runs on dubious ‘good news’, says Jonathan Portes, a professor at King’s College London and former senior civil servant
Why Trump’s Appalling 9/11 Lie Is Just the Start: Guru
The president’s dubious claim about 9/11 “follows a pattern” rooted in one of his worst impulses, a political analyst says.
Why Silicon Valley Is Obsessed With Biological Age Tests, Despite Dubious Science
Venture capitalist Meltem Demirors isn’t above the occasional splurge on bags, jewelry and other material things. But she much prefers to use her disposable income for an expanding array of exotic wellness experiments, including injecting peptides and hiring a personal longevity coach. “The only ...
It was John Wayne’s political club. Now it’s spending millions on online influence
A foundation linked to the Lincoln Club started local news sites critics find dubious. How John Wayne's old group became major influencers.
Do Americans support Trump’s boat strikes? It’s complicated.
If nothing else, the controversy over the Trump administration’s second strike on an alleged drug boat in the Caribbean has surfaced a long-overdue debate about its already legally dubious first strikes.
PSA: Please Do Not Buy This Dubious 'AI Translator'
We were asked not to write this review for the InnAIO T10, so naturally, we wrote this review.
The Chinese Government Has Been Targeting Journalists in an Entirely New Way
Let’s just say I’m not going to be clicking on dubious email links any time soon.
Growth in every postcode: good politics, dubious economics
The UK government would be better off backing clusters and widening access to opportunity
Are you a woman who makes life easier for everyone else? Beware – you could endanger your health
A new claim is doing the rounds online: that women who are too nice risk getting an autoimmune disease. And while aspects of this message are clearly dubious, there’s a reason it is resonating, writes Emma Beddington
Ethics Watchdogs To Investigate Whether Troubled Multnomah County Health Board Got Dubious Legal Advice
A Washington state attorney has been advising a Portland-area governance board on Oregon Public Meetings Law.
A dubious award, a redistricting debate, a (sort of) Parrott return, in political notes
A new face in the governor's communications shop, an old face returns -- briefly -- to the limelight in Washington County, a whole lot of debate on a bill that's all but dead ... and when Del. Vaughn Stewart hands you something, be very, very careful, in political notes.
Misleading AI-generated doctors pose ‘huge danger to public safety’
Research shows AI-generated physicians are gaining millions of views on TikTok by spreading dubious health advice
This week in Santa Cruz County business: Local nonprofit partners to help veterans transition into aviation careers; rental market takes dubious top honors for most expensive in the nation
In her latest business column, Jessica M. Pasko highlights a tricounty nonprofit aiming to give veterans more career opportunities, along with dates to keep in mind and more.
Trump makes a dubious pledge to give every U.S. adult $5,000 if GOP wins
It would most likely cost more than $1 trillion and require congressional approval
Epic flurry: How Trump’s words on Iran have yo-yoed over three weeks of war
He has dubiously claimed Iran posed an “imminent” threat to the US, months after declaring the US had “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear capabilities. He’s given a multitude of reasons for launching a war in the first place. He has declared victory scores of times, only to qualify those claims later on. Over the course of nearly a month, President Donald Trump has yo-yoed from demanding “unconditional surrender” to teasing a possible detente.
MAGA Is Winning Its War Against U.S. Science
Source: NBER With all the other terrible news right now, you may not have noticed that Donald Trump is in the process of killing American science. OK, that’s an exaggeration — but not that much of an exaggeration. The Trump administration’s latest budget proposal calls for a gigantic increase in military spending combined with severe cuts to social programs. But as the chart above shows, it also calls for debilitating reductions in research funding. Furthermore, Trump appointees have already been strangling science by sharply reducing the rate at which research grants are approved. Here, for example, is the number of new grants approved by the National Science Foundation: Source: Nature Large numbers of existing grants have also been frozen or terminated, especially in the study of infectious diseases. Add to this a sharp drop in visas issued to foreign students, who often play a direct role in research and who help support academic departments that do research: Put all of this together, and much U.S. scientific research is set to come to a screeching halt — not a few years from now, but over the course of the next year or two. This new assault on U.S. science is taking place at a time when the role of American science in the world has already been greatly eroded. The chart below, based on research recently reported by the National Bureau of Economic Research, measures national strength in science by the share of publications in highly ranked journals. In the 1990s the United States had more such publications than the rest of the world combined. Since then we’ve dropped into third place — well behind China and slightly below the European Union. And this was before the Trump administration’s attack on science had time to take its full effect. Source Some erosion in U.S. scientific preeminence was inevitable given China’s growing sophistication and wealth. But we’ve also fallen behind Europe, even though everyone says that Europe is lagging economically and technologically. Claims about Europe’s underperformance are, in fact, dubious if one looks hard at the data. But it’s still striking to see America lagging. What’s going on? There are presumably multiple factors behind America’s scientific lag. But even before Trump II the growing hostility of the U.S. right to science surely had some negative effect. And since the rise of MAGA G.O.P. attitudes toward science in general have become overwhelmingly hostile. This is true even for the Republican rank and file: And while I haven’t been able to find good survey data, it’s obvious that the anti-science turn has been even more pronounced — and began earlier — among the Republican political elite. Chris Mooney published The Republican War on Science in 2005, and even then was describing a longstanding trend. Why have Republicans turned so anti-science? Part of the answer is that they believe that scientists don’t support them. And they’re right! A study of who scientists give money to shows that only a small percentage gave money to Republicans even 20 years ago, and that almost none of them donate to Republicans now: Social scientists have always been strongly pro-Democratic, while there used to be a significant number of physical, “hard” scientists supporting the GOP. But these days physicists are almost as uniformly Democratic, or at least non-Republican, as sociologists. Why are there almost no Republican scientists? It’s not a mystery. GOP political orthodoxy includes positions that are at odds with the scientific consensus on multiple issues, ranging from the validity of the theory of evolution, to the reality of climate change, to the efficacy and safety of vaccines. In each case the scientific consensus is solidly grounded in evidence. But even before the rise of MAGA the U.S. right was increasingly hostile to evidence-based policymaking — especially, of course, where the evidence is unfavorable to fossil fuel interests or quack medicine, both financial mainstays of right-wing politics. So scientists don’t support Republicans, and the feeling is mutual. Today’s Republican Party doesn’t like science or scientists. It doesn’t like having its preconceived views challenged by appeals to evidence. It knows that very few scientists are on its side electorally. In general, it sees scientific research as a threat to its grasp on political power. Add in MAGA’s combination of rabid anti-intellectualism and allergy to any hint of criticism, and one has the makings of a drastic anti-science turn in policy. “Ignorance is strength” might was well be an official MAGA motto. And as I said, we aren’t talking about something that will happen over the course of multiple years: The U.S. scientific enterprise is threatened with severe damage, even collapse, over just the next year. There are many reasons to find this prospect horrifying: Think of all the beneficial advances, affecting almost every part of life, that won’t happen because U.S. science — still crucial to the world — has been eviscerated. But think, also, of America’s international standing. Can a nation that has forfeited its role as a leader, or even a contender, in global science, still be a Great Power? No. MUSICAL CODA
Takeaways from arguments in the Supreme Court case that could end grace periods for mail-in ballots
The Supreme Court’s conservative majority appeared dubious of state laws that allow the counting of mail ballots that arrive at election offices after Election Day as justices heard oral arguments in a challenge to Mississippi’s five-day grace period for mail ballots.
English: College football politics are ravaging the game — for Texas, the show still goes on
It’s a hellish era for college football teams. It has become typical for us to go through the same cycle of previously unbelievable news over the offseason. The transfer portal has always resulted in some messiness, as well as highly dubious tampering claims, and finding replacements for head coaches always brings on a little bit...
These New Startups Are Promising to Cure Your Next Hangover. What Does Science Say?
Hangover cures are big business and a hot new wellness trend, but scientists are dubious about their effectiveness (sorry!).
Taxpayers donate to tax increase campaign
Give the man his due. President Donald Trump has undeniable talents. Colorado politicians are learning. Chief among The Don’s skills is taking the self-serving, ethically dubious behavior of previous politicians and putting it on steroids. Or, to borrow from the only documentary that tells the whole truth about anything, “This Is Spinal Tap,” Trump turns […]
Navigating the social media minefield
Scientists and researchers seeking to announce promising findings, exchange ideas or contribute to policy discussions outside of academic circles may find social media an expedient tool.But increasingly, scientists and other professionals are discovering that online platforms can be a double-edged sword: while sharing their work and expertise is crucial for visibility and meeting funder expectations, it also exposes them to baseless criticism and even accusations of spreading false information."It is getting harder and harder for scientists, and researchers in general, to convey their findings without facing attacks on their legitimacy and accuracy of their research," says Valère Ndior, a professor of public law at the University of Western Brittany in Brest, France, who has spent more than a decade studying misinformation on social media. Researchers attempting to challenge deceptive online information may themselves be accused of political bias or not being objective in their research, he explains, adding that some scientists disengage because they feel overwhelmed and unable to sustain meaningful dialogue. "It is quite sad to see in some instances that researchers end up leaving social media altogether because they feel like the pressure is getting too intense or feel threatened," he says.Ndior, a past president of the Francophone Network of International Law, is also involved in European efforts to make science and research findings more accessible to the public. As an ambassador for the Science Comes to Town (SCTT) project, he has participated in recent discussions on public perceptions of science and online misinformation. The European Commission-funded initiative connects Brest and two other cities — Kiel in Germany and Split in Croatia — and aims to strengthen ties between communities, universities and research institutions to promote science awareness and cooperation across Europe.Coordinated campaigns around contentious topicsNdior draws a clear distinction between critical thinking and thoughtless criticism. Yet he sees online discussions being increasingly shaped by suspicious behaviour and coordinated information campaigns — including "raids" aimed at dominating discussions and "astroturfing," where small groups act as larger movements to sway debates. Tracking these patterns has become harder because some platforms have restricted data or charge for it, despite provisions of the European Union's Digital Securities Act aimed at ensuring researchers can have access to such data. According to Ndior, "platforms became more reluctant from the moment access to data became a legal requirement rather than a voluntary initiative."Unfounded claims and scepticism about science existed long before Internet chat groups. But the noticeable rise in online hostility has intensified around contentious topics, such as the coronavirus pandemic and climate change, alongside the weakening of gatekeepers to moderate content.For Ndior, dubious claims about pandemic countermeasures and vaccine safety highlighted the struggle between "balancing freedom of expression and the protection of public health and order." Efforts to remove social media content deemed false or risky for public health triggered accusations of censorship and the silencing of legitimate discussion, and in some cases, legal challenges.Concerns about attacks on the credibility of scientists and researchers have generated a flurry of academic papers in recent years and prompted professional communities to address ways to counter online attacks. Such unease extends to the generation that has grown up with digital media. Ndior points out that his students, some of whom research artificial intelligence regulation, hate speech, online surveillance and other controversial topics, hesitate to share their work or viewpoints online. "Many of them don't want to expose themselves too much because they don't feel ready to be faced with the backlash of other people criticising their research," he explains.Safer harbours for engagementLegal challenges against false or defamatory posts are not necessarily a solution — especially given the trans-jurisdictional nature of the Internet. Lawsuits also take time and money, and if they fail, can be counterproductive. Instead, Ndior advises scientists and researchers to be selective in how and where they communicate. Professional online platforms and moderated discussion spaces offer a better environment for engagement. He also highlights the value of more traditional formats, such as radio interviews and in-person discussions at schools, libraries and science fairs, which encourage dialogue with the public. "Personal contact makes a big difference," he says, while acknowledging that these approaches lack the global reach of social media.Ndior’s interest in digital law and online misinformation stems from his time as a doctoral student in international law in the early days of social media. He began analysing posts from governments and heads of state to determine if they could be considered official and thus used as evidence in litigation. His work attracted media attention and led to conference and speaking invitations. "This was not part of my plan," he says, "but this is what happens as a researcher — your interest is sparked by a certain event or phenomenon, and it suddenly becomes your focus."Ndior believes SCTT provides "a double benefit" for researchers, enabling them to connect with peers and interact with the public. "There is a wide community of people who are not in academia who are critical thinkers looking for opportunities to ask questions, to get information and contribute their ideas,” he says. "I really value that kind of feedback."Science|Business, which connects policymakers, academics and industry through its news reporting, analysis and events, is an SCTT partner.
Buccaneers HC Bowles in Dubious Territory As Record Worsens
A three-game slide in fifteen games puts Todd Bowles below his predecessors’ worst marks. With star departures and close losses mounting, the struggling coach is at a crossroads.
Many of Trump’s remaining options in Iran risk heavy casualties with dubious chances of success
President Donald Trump is weighing several options for dramatically escalating the war against Iran should his latest push for diplomacy fail.
Shaky political science: using "simulated" elections over real-world elections
[Dear DSOS readers – this article is the latest in our “Shaky Political Science” series. In our 38 page report, “Shaky political ‘science’ misses mark on ranked choice voting,” released in early December, we examined over 40 studies focused on ranked choice voting. We found that many of these studies suffered from puzzling research methodologies, poorly constructed surveys, unrealistic simulated elections, cherry picked data, and faulty analyses that often were contradicted by results from real-world elections (a link to our full paper is here). Here are links to the first three articles in our series: the first one summarizing the overall results of our report, the second one analyzing a study co-authored by University of Minnesota academic Larry Jacobs, which was one of the most error-prone of all the research we reviewed in our report, and a third article showing an admirable example of two political scientists holding two other political scientists accountable for their flawed, sloppy research]. In this fourth article in our “Shaky Political Science” series, we shine a spotlight on seven studies that were web-hosted and funded by New America’s Political Reform Program and its Electoral Reform Research Group (the ERRG is an ad hoc committee headed by New America’s Political Reform Program and joined by the American Enterprise Institute, the Unite America Institute and Stanford University’s Center on Democracy, Development, and the Rule of Law). This research consortium has been led by Lee Drutman, senior fellow with New America’s Political Reform Program. These seven studies are simply not credible from any objective standard about how political “science” is supposed to illuminate our understanding of either ranked choice voting or politics in general. The feature that six of these seven studies have in common is that they all used surveys – artificial, simulated elections -- to attempt to say something cogent or interesting about ranked choice voting (RCV) elections. None of them used real world data from actual RCV elections – either the 1000+ elections in the US or the many thousands of elections from places like Australia, Ireland and elsewhere where RCV has been used for 100 years. While a few of these studies conclude with some mixed positives about RCV, our analysis here is content neutral. The idea that, with a political reform like RCV, you can ask respondents in a mock, artificial election to vote with that method, with only the barest of explanation about how RCV works or its likely impacts (i.e. no spoiler candidates, majority winners, voters liberated to pick their favorite candidates, coalition-building), and then ask them their thoughts/reactions about voting in that system, with fake candidates and no real campaigning, no real exposure to an actual election or actual candidates, rests on some very puzzling assumptions. The findings of these seven studies actually are contradicted by the findings from many other studies based on real-world RCV elections. These New America studies also failed to list the real-world RCV studies in their own citations, instead including those studies that reinforced their conclusions. The seven studies featured in this article were chosen because they form a cohesive cohort which precisely illustrates one of the main points of our research paper, namely that using surveys, i.e. artificial elections, or mathematical/theoretical models, instead of real-world data, is in fact “shaky political science.” Below are summaries of our analysis of five of the seven New America studies. You can read our complete analysis of all seven studies at our paper, “Shaky political ‘science’ misses mark on ranked choice voting.” Choosing to “Vote As Usual” by Andre Blais, Carolina Plescia, and Semra Sevi. New America. (Blais et al., 2021). This study, web-hosted and funded by New America’s Political Reform Program and its Electoral Reform Research Group, used two surveys in which respondents completed ballots for simulated elections using plurality, approval, RCV and point (Score) voting. In both cases the authors provided the respondents with only minimal explanation of each method. For example, the entire explanation for RCV was “For this vote, rank the candidates from your first to your last choice (you do not need to rank them all). This is called the ranked vote.” That’s it. The study did not provide any context or explanation to survey respondents about why she/he might want to rank multiple candidates. Participants were not even told that ballots would be tabulated using an “instant” runoff, not to mention any description of RCVs ability to eliminate the spoiler effect or liberate voters to rank their favorite candidates without fear of helping the “greater evil” candidate to win. That’s like taking an iPhone back in time to 1970 and asking someone if they like it better than their rotary phone without explaining how it works. Their first survey targeted states that held 2020 Super Tuesday Democratic primaries and used the real candidates’ names in the survey; the second survey used fictitious candidates. In other words, they surveyed respondents who had only ever participated in plurality elections, had no history or background with using RCV or any of the other methods, had no clue about its likely impacts, and did not communicate how the alternative methods would be counted, and then asked them: “How satisfied are you with using each system?” Predictably, the winner was plurality elections, the system used for president, Congress, gubernatorial and state legislative elections – in other words, the method they have been using, year after year, all their voting lives. With so little explanation of RCV and its impacts, this study is simply not credible in discovering anything useful about real-world RCV elections. It merely shows that a basic voter education campaign is needed when adopting a new election system. Additionally, the result contradicts many other post-election surveys following real RCV elections, asking opinions from voters who had just participated in a RCV election, that showed a great deal of satisfaction with RCV (see details on that in Studies 22-25 in our paper, as well as the four studies cited in the review for Study 28). Share Other studies on “satisfaction” and “understanding” make similar mistakes, in terms of basing their surveys on inadequate explanation to respondents and lack of education about context. How could any survey ever hope to measure accurately, in essence simulate a real-world election, without actual campaigning candidates, the media writing about those candidates, organizations endorsing candidates and voters being inundated with crucial information? More than anything, what these “studies” based on surveys show is that if you ask voters about something they don’t know very much about, and fail to adequately educate them, their responses will unsurprisingly reflect their confusion. Equally puzzling is that New America’s Electoral Reform Research Group, headed by political scientist Lee Drutman, found this to be a credible enough study that they not only published it but highlighted it in Drutman’s own discussion of research related to ranked choice voting. This pattern was repeated in study after study featured by New America’s Electoral Reform Research Group. For example in Ranked-Choice Voting and Political Expression: Voter Guides Narrow the Gap between Informed and Uninformed Citizens by Cheryl Boudreau, Jonathan Colner, and Scott MacKenzie, the researchers based their analysis on a survey which found that respondents who were asked to vote in a simulated RCV election, with minimal explanation of RCV or how it works, displayed less evidence of being informed about how to use RCV effectively, with the least informed voters ranking fewer candidates. As pointed out under the study above, in a real election voters are informed by a wide variety of methods, including public education by the election administration, by interested political groups, the media, and the candidates themselves who benefit from voters being aware of how to vote in the new system. In Support for Ranked-Choice Voting across Race and Partisanship by Joseph Anthony, David C. Kimball, Jack Santucci and Jamil Scott, the researchers used respondents from different parties and races voting in simulated plurality and RCV elections, who indicated their satisfaction with each voting method. Instead of using real world election results, the authors fell back on the easy, armchair and less reliable academic research methodology of making up mock elections. As with the other studies, little explanation was given of how RCV works or what its implications might be (electing majority winners or eliminating spoilers, for example). Unsurprisingly, this study found that respondents were not very satisfied with RCV. However, when the authors added an explanation that RCV has a tendency to elect more women and people of color, they found that this greater explanation increased the preference for RCV. The more voters were familiar with it, and the more they understood potential positive impacts – surprise! -- the more they were open to switching away from the status quo. Of note, the results from this study are thoroughly contradicted by a number of other studies whose data was obtained from real RCV elections with real voters. Those studies show a great deal of satisfaction with RCV. More “fake election” research An interesting wrinkle on this “research by fake elections” approach, which only served to illustrate how unreliable such “research” can become, was taken in Ranked-Choice Voting, Runoff, and Democracy: Insights from Maine and Other U.S. States by Joseph Cerrone and Cynthia McClintock_,_ also web-hosted and funded by New America’s ERRG. It gets high marks for creativity, but an eye-roll for thinking this could possibly add anything meaningful to our understanding of real world RCV elections. This study tried to determine whether RCV, plurality or two-round runoff elections provided greater voter satisfaction and acceptance of election results. To determine that, the authors conducted a survey asking if voters were satisfied with a fictional newspaper report of an election, with three different versions given to respondents – plurality, runoff and RCV, with variations of Republican/Democrat winners and variations of “come-from-behind” winners,” i.e. candidates not initially in first place but who win the “runoff.” Again, a minimal explanation of RCV or how it works was given, and the survey showed that respondents had the greatest unfamiliarity with RCV than the other methods. The unsurprising result? Respondents were much more satisfied with “come-from-behind” victories in a traditional two-round runoff election than in RCV, even though RCV is also a runoff system but with a single round of counting. Interestingly, the dissatisfaction with RCV disappeared for those who were more familiar with RCV. In fact, among those respondents who were “very familiar” with RCV, they were equally satisfied with RCV, runoff and plurality. Surprise, surprise. Again, what this study revealed, more than anything, is not only the inadequacy of the explanation for RCV given by the authors of this study, but the failure of the research format itself, thinking that such an artificial mock election could somehow simulate what actually happens in the real world in a real RCV election. Those four studies reviewed above are fitting examples of inadequate and shaky political “science.” Other studies reviewed in our paper from the New America/Electoral Reform Research Group cohort which also used mock elections included: Ranked-Choice Voting is an Acquired Taste by Joseph Anthony and David C. Kimball. New America. (Anthony et al., 2021). Ranked-Choice Voting is No Refuge for Extreme Candidates by Melissa Baker. New America. (Baker, 2021). Also included in this New America cohort is Does Ranked-Choice Voting Reduce Racial Polarization? by Yuki Atsusaka and Theodore Landsman, which actually did use real-world election results data but applied an odd and unconventional methodology to the data which relied on shaky assumptions and non-real-world scenarios that were too divorced from reality. To determine levels of “racially polarized voting,” the researchers imagined “ethnic parties,” by which they mean political parties for each ethnic group, which was especially odd since the election data they were using came from nonpartisan RCV races. But then they made an even odder assumption, namely that since race and ethnic characteristics of studied voters were not available, the authors tried to infer that information based on who voters selected and the racial make-up of voters in each district. This amounted to little more than vague and ambiguous guesswork dressed up with a bunch of mathematical equations used to give it a veneer of scientific appearance. Indeed, it seemed to assume racial polarization in order to prove racial polarization. Based on this questionable methodology, the authors concluded that RCV doesn’t reduce racial polarization. But the premise of this study missed an obvious reality: since RCV incentivizes more candidates to run and can result in more diverse fields of candidates, one would expect more racially-polarized voting in voters’ top rankings, not less, because more voters would have someone on that ballot who represents their racial or ethnic identity and more freedom to vote for their real first choice. By encouraging more diverse candidates and eliminating the spoiler effect, RCV facilitates voting for a favorite candidate of your own race and then selecting a second choice with the best likelihood of winning. The real measure is what voters do with their additional rankings – do they consider other candidates and vote “for the best of the rest”? This study didn’t tell us anything useful about that. But readily available data shows this is common in real RCV elections, and candidates act on this knowledge by engaging with voters outside their racial group. So the authors of this study failed to consider or account for what actually happens in real-world elections, and their conclusions are tainted by this failure. New America has contributed a great deal over the past 2.5 decades to our understanding of many policy areas, including politics and political reform (full disclosure: Steven Hill, one of the authors of this article and of the “Shaky Political Science” research paper and series, is a former senior fellow and former director of New America’s political reform program, 2005-2010). So it was especially disappointing that New America funded and published such a large batch of dubious studies about ranked choice voting. The stated praiseworthy goal of its Electoral Reform Research Group was to inspire new academic research about ranked choice voting that would shed light and help the public better understand the impacts of RCV. Instead, the ERRG research did just the opposite. It produced dubious research that created more confusion and misinformation. In so doing, New America’s political reform program contributed to “shaky political science.” Steven Hill and Paul Haughey Share Upgrade to $5 subscription Thanks for reading DemocracySOS, a reader-supported digital portal for the pro-democracy movement. Subscribe for only $5 per month to receive full benefits and to support our work. Subscribe
Platner and Starmer remind us that character matters in politics
The UK premier has a litany of broken promises behind him, while the US Senate hopeful has shown dubious judgment
Freed Venezuelan Political Prisoner Called Maduro’s 2024 Victory a Fraud to His Face
Enrique Márquez, a centrist opposition lawmaker, refused to rubber-stamp the government’s dubious election results in front of the entire nation.
Navigating the social media minefield
Scientists and researchers seeking to announce promising findings, exchange ideas or contribute to policy discussions outside of academic circles may find social media an expedient tool.But increasingly, scientists and other professionals are discovering that online platforms can be a double-edged sword: while sharing their work and expertise is crucial for visibility and meeting funder expectations, it also exposes them to baseless criticism and even accusations of spreading false information."It is getting harder and harder for scientists, and researchers in general, to convey their findings without facing attacks on their legitimacy and accuracy of their research," says Valère Ndior, a professor of public law at the University of Western Brittany in Brest, France, who has spent more than a decade studying misinformation on social media. Researchers attempting to challenge deceptive online information may themselves be accused of political bias or not being objective in their research, he explains, adding that some scientists disengage because they feel overwhelmed and unable to sustain meaningful dialogue. "It is quite sad to see in some instances that researchers end up leaving social media altogether because they feel like the pressure is getting too intense or feel threatened," he says.Ndior, a past president of the Francophone Network of International Law, is also involved in European efforts to make science and research findings more accessible to the public. As an ambassador for the Science Comes to Town (SCTT) project, he has participated in recent discussions on public perceptions of science and online misinformation. The European Commission-funded initiative connects Brest and two other cities — Kiel in Germany and Split in Croatia — and aims to strengthen ties between communities, universities and research institutions to promote science awareness and cooperation across Europe.Coordinated campaigns around contentious topicsNdior draws a clear distinction between critical thinking and thoughtless criticism. Yet he sees online discussions being increasingly shaped by suspicious behaviour and coordinated information campaigns — including "raids" aimed at dominating discussions and "astroturfing," where small groups act as larger movements to sway debates. Tracking these patterns has become harder because some platforms have restricted data or charge for it, despite provisions of the European Union's Digital Securities Act aimed at ensuring researchers can have access to such data. According to Ndior, "platforms became more reluctant from the moment access to data became a legal requirement rather than a voluntary initiative."Unfounded claims and scepticism about science existed long before Internet chat groups. But the noticeable rise in online hostility has intensified around contentious topics, such as the coronavirus pandemic and climate change, alongside the weakening of gatekeepers to moderate content.For Ndior, dubious claims about pandemic countermeasures and vaccine safety highlighted the struggle between "balancing freedom of expression and the protection of public health and order." Efforts to remove social media content deemed false or risky for public health triggered accusations of censorship and the silencing of legitimate discussion, and in some cases, legal challenges.Concerns about attacks on the credibility of scientists and researchers have generated a flurry of academic papers in recent years and prompted professional communities to address ways to counter online attacks. Such unease extends to the generation that has grown up with digital media. Ndior points out that his students, some of whom research artificial intelligence regulation, hate speech, online surveillance and other controversial topics, hesitate to share their work or viewpoints online. "Many of them don't want to expose themselves too much because they don't feel ready to be faced with the backlash of other people criticising their research," he explains.Safer harbours for engagementLegal challenges against false or defamatory posts are not necessarily a solution — especially given the trans-jurisdictional nature of the Internet. Lawsuits also take time and money, and if they fail, can be counterproductive. Instead, Ndior advises scientists and researchers to be selective in how and where they communicate. Professional online platforms and moderated discussion spaces offer a better environment for engagement. He also highlights the value of more traditional formats, such as radio interviews and in-person discussions at schools, libraries and science fairs, which encourage dialogue with the public. "Personal contact makes a big difference," he says, while acknowledging that these approaches lack the global reach of social media.Ndior’s interest in digital law and online misinformation stems from his time as a doctoral student in international law in the early days of social media. He began analysing posts from governments and heads of state to determine if they could be considered official and thus used as evidence in litigation. His work attracted media attention and led to conference and speaking invitations. "This was not part of my plan," he says, "but this is what happens as a researcher — your interest is sparked by a certain event or phenomenon, and it suddenly becomes your focus."Ndior believes SCTT provides "a double benefit" for researchers, enabling them to connect with peers and interact with the public. "There is a wide community of people who are not in academia who are critical thinkers looking for opportunities to ask questions, to get information and contribute their ideas,” he says. "I really value that kind of feedback."Science|Business, which connects policymakers, academics and industry through its news reporting, analysis and events, is an SCTT partner.
Trump makes a dubious pledge to give every U.S. adult $5,000 if GOP wins
It would most likely cost more than $1 trillion and require congressional approval