Experts Matter. Find Yours.

Are China's New Policies Opening Up China?

For centuries China has been known as a closed country. When the Ming Dynasty (1368-1644) started enforcing immense cultural and political influence, it acted as a catalyst for China's closed country status. Then the Qing dynasty (1644-1912) made the closed country status official by expanding China's political, cultural and administrative structures.  Now after over 600 years, China is announcing they may become more open than they have in past centuries. China is not fully becoming open, but there are two ways China is hoping to re-establish its reputation among other countries.  In 2024 China announced they are enabling a temporary visa-free policy, that permits visitors from 43 countries to visit China without visas for short trips lasting only a few days. China installed this policy with hopes of promoting global goodwill and to encourage tourism and business travel.  Now in 2025, China says they will implement policies that will promote stable foreign trade growth and improve services for enterprises. While this new policy is just beginning, the visa-free policy will end at the end of 2025.  So, while China says they are becoming more open, they mean they are welcoming foreign businesses and investors. They are currently not becoming open religiously, politically, socially or economically. Citizens, even visitors, still remain under strict censorship, surveillance and political control. These policies also don't mean that foreign companies will no longer experience restrictions, forced partnerships with Chinese firms, data rules, and unexpected regulatory pressure. These things will still continue to occur. China is being selective on what these policies entail and how long they will last.  Since the COVID lockdowns and now with the real estate crashes and youth unemployment, China has felt its economy slowing. It's their hope that these new policies will help boost China's economy.  Economic Perspective: Dr. Jared Pincin is an expert on economics and is available to speak to media regarding China's economy – simply click on his icon or email mweinstein@cedarville.edu to arrange an interview.  International Relations Perspective: Dr. Glen Duerr, professor of international studies at Cedarville University and a citizen of the United Kingdom, Canada, and the United States, is a nationally known expert on this subject and is available to speak to on China's new policies. To schedule an interview, email Mark D. Weinstein, executive director of public relations at Cedarville University at mweinstein@cedarville.edu or click on his icon.

Remembering the Tiananmen Square Crackdown in 1989

The anniversary of the Tiananmen Square crackdown on June 4, 1989, marks one of the most pivotal and censored events in modern Chinese history. What began as a peaceful student-led demonstration demanding political reform, freedom of expression, and anti-corruption measures, ended in a violent military response that shocked the world. The Chinese government's suppression of the protests, including the deaths and detentions of countless civilians, continues to shape how the nation is viewed both internally and globally. As public remembrance is restricted in China, the event remains a powerful lens through which to examine human rights, authoritarian governance, and the limits of collective memory. Key story angles include: What Led to the Protests: Exploring the economic and political climate of late-1980s China, the influence of global democratic movements, and the demands of the student protestors. The Crackdown and Casualties: Reconstructing the timeline of events, the military response, estimated death tolls, and the international reactions in real-time. Global Response and Diplomatic Fallout: Analyzing how countries responded with sanctions, condemnation, or silence—and how the crackdown affected China’s foreign relations. Censorship and Erasure in China Today: Investigating how the Chinese Communist Party has erased public memory of the event through internet censorship, media control, and surveillance. Legacy for Chinese Civil Society: Looking at how the crackdown shaped political activism, dissent, and civil rights movements in China and among the Chinese diaspora. Symbolism and Cultural Memory: Examining how iconic images, like the “Tank Man,” became global symbols of resistance, and how artists, scholars, and activists continue to commemorate the event. As China rises on the world stage, the legacy of Tiananmen Square remains a crucial marker of its internal contradictions and its contested role in global discussions on freedom, history, and accountability. Connect with our experts about Tiananmen Square and its enduring global impact: Check out our experts here : www.expertfile.com

Amid Detainees' Release, Putin Flaunts Power and Flouts Western Influence

On August 1, the United States, Russia, Germany and three other European nations engaged in an historic 24-person East-West prisoner exchange. The largest such swap since the end of the Cold War, the multi-country deal secured the release of three prominent American detainees: Wall Street Journal correspondent Evan Gershkovich, corporate security executive Paul Whelan and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty editor Alsu Kurmasheva. It also freed a dozen Russian opposition leaders, incarcerated in their native country for challenging Vladimir Putin and his authoritarian regime. Lynne Hartnett, PhD, is the chair of Villanova University’s Department of History and an expert on modern Russia, protest movements and dissidents in exile. Recently, she shared some insights on the Kremlin's decision to release the American and Russian prisoners—as well as the egotism, oppressive tendencies and political posturing that drove their detention. Q: The arrests and sentencings of Gershkovich, Whelan and Kurmasheva have been described as "outrageous," "a mockery of justice" and reflective of "a total disregard for basic freedoms." What prompted Putin and the Russian government to detain these individuals? Dr. Hartnett: For Putin, seizing Gershkovich, Whelan and Kurmasheva was a power play. They were pawns for him to use when he deemed it convenient. If they could be used in a prisoner swap, they would be. But if that time never arrived, their incarceration, suffering and even potential deaths were inconsequential to him. Their arrests were also a signal that, in Russia, Putin's authority is uncontested. These were American citizens, and around the world, a U.S. passport opens doors: It holds power; it provides access; and it affords its holder protection. But the arrests of Gershkovich, Whelan and Kurmasheva were Putin’s attempt to demonstrate the limits of American influence. They were meant as a signal that, in Russia, a U.S. passport becomes meaningless if it serves Putin to make it so. Q: In recent years, the Russian government has seemingly worked to rehabilitate the reputations of figures like Josef Stalin, who infamously used the Soviet Gulag to stifle opposition and criticism. Is Putin's use of detentions as a political cudgel similar? DH: The show trials of the Stalinist era are frequently referenced. However, it should be stressed that those were largely intended for domestic consumption. They were used to justify the Communist elites' repression of fellow citizens by broadcasting "evidence" that enemies lurked within. The trials of Americans like Gershkovich and Brittney Griner [a professional basketball player detained on smuggling charges] were designed to show the world, not just Russians, that Putin's regime would not be cowed—even if the person being tried had fame and a powerful enterprise, like the Wall Street Journal or the WNBA, supporting them. Q: The New York Times recently ran a piece on the Russian dissidents released, claiming "hopes are high [they] will breathe new life into a fragmented opposition force." What do you anticipate these political players' activism will look like in the coming years, especially in exile? DH: As in the Imperial and Soviet periods, Russian censorship prevents any news or opinions that are not the government's from coming to light. As Putin has dismantled political opposition in Russia and tightened his grip on any vestiges of civil society in the country, there is little hope that a powerful opposition movement can gain momentum without outside support. This is where the Russian dissidents living abroad come in. They will ensure that a vision for another type of Russia is articulated. At the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th centuries, political exiles smuggled illegal newspapers and journals into the Russian empire to instill hope in their compatriots, to give them some indication that a nation beyond the autocracy was achievable. This, in my opinion, is the role that Russian dissidents living in exile must have today. They must provide the vision. They must provide the hope. While they cannot change the system on their own—they need a movement en masse—the dissidents abroad are needed to demonstrate that a nation without Putin and his repressive regime is possible. This is certainly not an easy venture, and it will require extraordinary sacrifices to be made a reality. However, it may be the Russian people's only hope.

Is AI Censoring Us?

Artificial intelligence has been hogging headlines around the world in recent months. In late March 2023, an unprecedented coalition of tech CEOs signed an open letter calling for a moratorium on AI training. The race to empower powerful artificial minds should be paused, argued signatories (including Elon Musk) to give humanity time to review and reassess the potential risks of developing “human-competitive intelligence”–intelligence that “no one–not even their creators–can understand, predict, or reliably control.” Concerns about the unchecked rise of AI are not new, and global media is increasingly sounding the alarm, citing concerns that range from invasion of privacy to an existential threat to human existence. Weighing in on this with compelling new evidence around the “unintended consequences” of AI is research by Goizueta’s Ramnath Chellappa and Information Systems PhD candidate, Jonathan Gomez Martinez. Uncovering the Threat Their paper, Content Moderation and AI: Impact on Minority Communities, takes a hard look at how the use of AI in social media could disadvantage LGBTQ+ users. And what they find is worrying. Chellappa, who is Goizueta Foundation Term Professor of Information Systems & Operations Management, explains that he and Gomez Martinez homed in on Twitter to explore how unchecked artificial language moderation might (mistakenly) censor the use of “otherwise toxic” language by failing to understand the context or nuanced use of the LGBTQ+ lexicon. Examples of this include “reclaimed language”—verbiage that would be a slur in other contexts—but is reclaimed and prosocial if used by the originally targeted community. Their paper, Content Moderation and AI: Impact on Minority Communities, takes a hard look at how the use of AI in social media could disadvantage LGBTQ+ users. And what they find is worrying. Chellappa, who is Goizueta Foundation Term Professor of Information Systems & Operations Management, explains that he and Gomez Martinez homed in on Twitter to explore how unchecked artificial language moderation might (mistakenly) censor the use of “otherwise toxic” language by failing to understand the context or nuanced use of the LGBTQ+ lexicon. Examples of this include “reclaimed language”—verbiage that would be a slur in other contexts—but is reclaimed and prosocial if used by the originally targeted community. “This is a community that has ‘reclaimed’ certain words and expressions that might be considered offensive in other contexts. Terms like ‘queer’ are used within the community both in jest and as a marker of identity and belonging. But if used by those outside the community, this kind of language could be deemed inflammatory or offensive.” Gomez Martinez adds: “We wanted to measure the extent to which AI’s lack of a nuanced understanding of what is ‘acceptable’ affects minority users’ online interactions. As humans, we understand that marginalized communities have long used ‘reclaimed words’ both in jest and as a kind of rallying cry. Our intuition was that the machine simply wouldn’t understand this without context—context that is more immediately apparent to people.” Determining the Impact of AI-Based Moderation To test this, he and Chellappa looked at data from social media behemoth, Twitter. During the pandemic in 2020, the platform made a significant shift to AI-based content moderation to accommodate stay-at-home measures. Data from Twitter’s proprietary Academic Research API afforded Gomez Martinez and Chellappa access to a complete listing of historical tweets and replies before, during and after this period. Together they analyzed a total of 3.8 million interactions (1.8 million tweets and 2.0 million replies) from a panel of 2,751 users, of which 1,224 self-identified as LGBTQ+ in their Twitter bios. Their study ran over four months, from January to May 2020, before, during and after the switch to machine-based moderation. Using the same tools that Twitter moderators deploy to moderate interactions, Gomez Martinez and Chellappa were able to measure any increase or decrease in pro-social, in-group teasing and toxic language among LGBTQ+ users: terms such as “bitch” or “queer,” which research shows to be a form of ritualized insults—dubbed “reading” by the community—which can appear inappropriate or incoherent to outsiders, says Chellappa. “Analyzing the language, we find a notable reduction in the use of terms that could be considered toxic. When the AI moderation is in effect, you see these users’ language become more vanilla,” he adds. Quantifiably so, in fact. Chellappa and Martinez find a 27 percent reduction in the use of reclaimed language among LGBTQ+ users. And while that doesn’t sound like much, it’s significant for the community, says Gomez Martinez. Using in-language and reading each other is one way for this marginalized group to create a sense of community and social status. Not just that, we know from research that LGBTQ+ people use slurs and insults as a way of preparing themselves emotionally and psychologically for hostile interaction with heterosexual individuals. This kind of teasing and playing helps build resilience, so any reduction in it is significant.” Jonathan Gomez Martinez Good Intentions May Breed Unexpected Consequences So what does this mean for social media, for the LGBTQ+ community or any marginalized group for that matter, that might be prone to automated censorship? And how does any of this play out in the context of broader concerns around AI? For Chellappa and Gomez Martinez, there is a major hazard in granting technology any degree of control over how human beings interact. And it’s rooted in the mismatch between good intentions and unexpected consequences. Their paper, one of the first to dig into the impact of AI on actual business and society, lays bare some of the real-world impact AI has already had on marginalized people. While this study looks at the LGBTQ+ community, it could equally apply to any group that is prone to bias or exclusion—racial minorities or any other underrepresented demographic. “Wherever you have user-generated content, you are likely to find communities with their own, unique way of interacting. We looked at LGBTQ+ Twitter users, but you could also look at the African American community, for instance.” Ramnath K. Chellapa At a time when social media platforms have become almost newslike in their influence, this is a concern. On the one hand, censoring certain demographics might earn Twitter et al an unwanted reputation for being anti-LGBTQ+ or racist, he adds. But there are even bigger stakes here than bad publicity. “Twitter has long aspired to be a kind of global town square,” says Gomez Martinez. “But you end up pretty far from that scenario if only some voices are truly heard, or if you start reinforcing biases because you are using a time-saving technology that is not equipped yet to understand the complexity and nuance of human interaction.” AI isn’t there yet, say Chellappa and Gomez Martinez. And they caution against using AI indiscriminately to expedite or streamline processes that impact human communication and interchange. If we don’t keep track of it, their research shows that AI has the potential to start dictating and moving people into normative behavior—effectively homogenizing us. And that’s a problem. Looking to know more? Ramnath Chellappa is available to speak with media. Simply click on his icon now to arrange an interview today.

Ask the Expert: What is critical race theory and why is it under attack in our schools?

Michigan joins other states that have introduced legislation that would sharply limit classroom discussions on how race and racism have shaped American history. Dorinda Carter Andrews, professor and chairperson, Department of Teacher Education at Michigan State University’s College of Education, said this is an ill-formed conflation, and answers other questions about critical race theory. What is critical race theory? Critical race theory, or CRT, is a framework developed in the 1970s by legal scholars that argues white supremacy maintains power through the law and other legal systems. CRT dismisses the idea that racism stems from acts of individuals but rather rooted in a system of oppression based on socially constructed racial hierarchy where white people reap material benefits over people of color resulting from misuse of power. Teaching young people about race and racism is not synonymous with teaching them critical race theory. Critical race theory is not an ideology or a political orientation that assumes white people are bad; it assumes white supremacy is bad in all of its forms. It’s a practice or approach that provides language and a lens for examining racism at institutional and structural levels. Underlying this is the premise that racism is endemic to American society and that white supremacist ideals and practices should be dismantled. Why are there proposals to ban critical race theory in schools? As of mid-May, legislation to outlaw CRT in schools has passed in Idaho, Iowa, Oklahoma and Tennessee and have been proposed in various other statehouses. Since the onset of teaching about American history, teachers have been teaching about forms of systemic racial discrimination and oppression, including slavery. This is not new to schools. However, traditionally school curriculums have taken a Eurocentric approach. Now we are living in a time where the voices of people of color are being lifted up, and tragic events like George Floyd's death one year ago and violence against members of the Asian panethnic community prove that problems remain. The narrative of U.S. history is being diversified, and that is creating fear, particularly among white people. Teaching young people how to be antiracist should not be seen as an attack on American values. It’s actually working in support of American ideals like inclusion and valuing diverse perspectives. Why is it important for students to learn about systemic racism in schools? It’s important to try to help youth understand how bias and oppression are institutional, structural and systemic, and not simply interpersonal. Young people are not colorblind or color mute. They see color and they talk race and racism in their own social circles and peer groups. Research indicates that as early as age 3, children have negative associations about some racial groups. By the time they enter elementary school, children already have a level of racial literacy that evidences their awareness that some individuals and groups are treated differently in their schools and society based on skin color. This is particularly apparent for elementary-aged children of color. If children of color are old enough to experience racial discrimination and injustice, then all children, especially white children, are old enough to learn about racism in ways that enhance their cross-cultural competency, racial literacy skills and skill set for improving our democracy. What is proposed in the Michigan legislation? A new bill introduced to the Michigan Legislature would sharply limit Michigan classroom discussions of how race and racism have shaped American history. Under the legislation introduced, K-12 school districts would lose 5% of their funding if educators teach critical race theory, “anti-American” ideas about race in America, or material from The 1619 Project, a New York Times initiative that puts Black history and the consequences of slavery at the center of the U.S. national narrative. School funding penalties tied to implementing antiracist curriculum is actually a racist move that furthers systemic racial oppression in education, disadvantages all children, and upholds white supremacist ideals. What are the possible consequences of this legislation? The bills are so vaguely written that it’s unclear what they will affirmatively cover. Could a teacher who wants to talk about a factual instance of state-sponsored racism — like the establishment of Jim Crow, the series of laws that prevented Black Americans from voting or holding office and separated them from white people in public spaces — be considered in violation of these laws? It’s also unclear whether these new bills are constitutional, or whether they impermissibly restrict free speech. It would be extremely difficult, in any case, to police what goes on inside hundreds of thousands of classrooms. But social studies educators fear that such laws could have a chilling effect on teachers who might self-censor their own lessons out of concern for parent or administrator complaints. Additionally, such bills can actually work to undermine educational goals of diversifying the teaching workforce. Students of color may be less likely to pursue a teaching career if there is censorship around race talk across subject areas. Are you a journalist looking to cover this topic or learn more about critical race theory - then let us help. Dorinda Carter Andrews, professor and chairperson, Department of Teacher Education at Michigan State University’s College of Education. She's available to speak with media - simply click on her icon now to arrange an interview today.

The pros and cons of 'deplatforming' – Our experts are being asked if it works and if there’s an upside to turning people off

After an incited and encouraged crowd of Trump supporters stormed the Capitol buildings last earlier this month – social media, or at least the executives that run companies like Twitter and Facebook had had enough and opted to oust President Donald Trump from their platforms. Donald Trump has been ‘deplatformed’ and no longer has easy access to an audience of millions of followers. The concept of deplatforming is being widely debated. And recently, University of Connecticut’s Ugochukwu Etudo was asked to lend his expert perspective on the idea. Does the deplatforming of prominent figures and movement leaders who command large followings online work? That depends on the criteria for the success of the policy intervention. If it means punishing the target of the deplatforming so they pay some price, then without a doubt it works. For example, right-wing provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos was banned from Twitter in 2016 and Facebook in 2019, and subsequently complained about financial hardship. If it means dampening the odds of undesirable social outcomes and unrest, then in the short term, yes. But it is not at all certain in the long term. In the short term, deplatforming serves as a shock or disorienting perturbation to a network of people who are being influenced by the target of the deplatforming. This disorientation can weaken the movement, at least initially. However, there is a risk that deplatforming can delegitimize authoritative sources of information in the eyes of a movement’s followers, and remaining adherents can become even more ardent. Movement leaders can reframe deplatforming as censorship and further proof of a mainstream bias. There is reason to be concerned about the possibility that driving people who engage in harmful online behavior into the shadows further entrenches them in online environments that affirm their biases. Far-right groups and personalities have established a considerable presence on privacy-focused online platforms, including the messaging platform Telegram. This migration is concerning because researchers have known for some time that complete online anonymity is associated with increased harmful behavior online. In deplatforming policymaking, among other considerations, there should be an emphasis on justice, harm reduction and rehabilitation. Policy objectives should be defined transparently and with reasonable expectations in order to avoid some of these negative unintended consequences. January 15 – The Conversation If you’re a journalist covering deplatforming and would like to talk with Ugochukwu Etudo – simply click on his icon today and we’ll arrange an interview today.

New York Times, Pornhub, Visa & Mastercard: The Debate

Yet another example of no one listening to sex workers Pornhub just made major changes to how their platform works, including expanded moderation and new guidelines for content uploads. Now, only verified users can upload videos to the platform – a decision which meant the total number of videos hosted on Pornhub were more than quartered overnight from 13.4 million to 2.9 million – and users can no longer download videos from the site. This comes after an expose on the New York Times, The Children of Pornhub, which investigated the number of rape videos being hosted on the site, including those of minors. The article, written by Nicholas Kristof, followed the lives of child sexual assault victims whose videos were uploaded onto the site. The op-ed launched a huge debate within the adult industry over censorship & moderation. People, rightfully so, do not trust Kristof because of his ties to anti-porn organisations and his reputation when it comes to reporting on sex work. In the past he has been accused of conflating sex work with sex trafficking, using misleading statistics, and was instrumental in the shutting down of Backpage, a vital safeguarding tool for sex workers, calling it “the pillar of sex trafficking”. He also quoted Laila Mickelwait in the op-ed, who is an activist and director of Traffickinghub, a campaign launched by Exodus Cry which has anti-sex work, anti-LGBTQ and anti-abortion links (it’s founder reportedly compared abortion to the holocaust). This week, two days after Pornhub announced their changes, Visa and Mastercard started an investigation and soon announced that their cards would no longer be accepted on the platform. This has left Pornhub with no way to process payments other than with cryptocurrencies. It goes without saying that the decision from Visa & Mastercard has panicked adult content creators who make their living from paid content on Pornhub. Because let’s be clear, Mastercard & Visa’s decision will not hurt Pornhub, who always have and always will continue to make money off of stolen content, this decision hurts sex workers – the people that Pornhub has never cared for. Adult performers, producers and directors have spent years speaking out about the exploitation within Pornhub and the tube site business model, yet no one has listened. MindGeek, the parent company of Pornhub, dominates online porn. It has completely demolished the industry and drained money out of the industry by stealing performers’ work and giving it away for free, and by monopolising the industry. MindGeek is an aggressive tech company through and through, it does not care about porn or adult content creators, it cares about traffic and advertising. It also owns production companies which means performers who may want to speak out about the system ultimately can’t for fear of being black listed from the production companies and therefore having less work and even less money. "Adult performers have spent years speaking out about the exploitation within Pornhub and the tube site business model, yet no one has listened" Pornhub does not care about performers and it’s clear that Kristof doesn’t either, but it wasn’t until the New York Times covered this issue that Pornhub did something. I wonder why? If properly implemented by Pornhub, their new regulations could have had a significant impact on illegal and stolen content, which would be a win for adult performers who have no choice but to use the platform. But with the new ban from Mastercard & Visa, they could now be in an even worse position than before. This is yet another example, just like SESTA/FOSTA, that shows that when it comes to making changes to the adult industry we must speak to sex workers & have their involvement in policy. Pornhub, Mastercard, & Visa, do not care about the issue of rape videos or of pirated material, these are policies that were brought in under pressure to “do something” out of fear of negative publicity. We know that Pornhub does not care about the content it hosts, the people it hurts or the lives it ruins – they have shown us this time and again. Just last year they demonstrated this with the Girls do Porn case. Despite 22 women coming forward to sue Girls Do Porn for uploading explicit videos of them to Pornhub without their consent, Pornhub refused to remove the videos from the platform, even promoting them, until Girls do Porn were finally charged with sex trafficking. Now is not a time to protect Pornhub, it’s time to protect and support the people who will actually be harmed by this. We must remember who have been talking about this for years whilst no one has listened; sex workers. Please go and find performers and indie producers that you want to support and pay them for their work. Whether it’s on Only Fans or through their personal websites, pay & support sex workers & adult content creators.

Social media as a weapon

Best-selling author Peter Singer talks with the Brunswick Review about winning the increasingly crowded and contentious war for attention What do Isis and Taylor Swift have in common? According to author and digital-security strategist Peter Singer, both the terrorist organization and pop star are fighting for your attention online and employing similar tactics to try and win it. ISIS kicked off its 2014 invasion of Mosul with the hashtag, “#AllEyesonISIS.” More recently, the terror group posted photos of its members holding cute cats in an effort to make them more relatable – tactics familiar to most celebrities and online marketers around the world. These online battles, the rules governing them, and their real-world impact are the focus of Mr. Singer’s latest book, LikeWar, which he coauthored with Emerson T. Brooking, at the time a research fellow with the Council of Foreign Relations. “A generation ago people talked about the emergence of cyber war, the hacking of networks. A ‘LikeWar’ is the flip side: the hacking of people and ideas on those networks. Power in this conflict is the command of attention,” says Mr. Singer, who in addition to his writing is also a strategist and Senior Fellow at the New America Foundation. Pretty much everyone who posts online – from governments to marketers to reality TV stars – is a combatant in this fight for virality, according to Mr. Singer. Triumph in a “LikeWar” and you command attention to your product or propaganda or personality. Lose and you cede control of the spotlight and the agenda. Mr. Singer recently spoke with Brunswick’s Siobhan Gorman about the trends he’s seeing in LikeWars around the world, and what companies can do to avoid being on the losing end. What were you most surprised by in researching LikeWar? One of the more interesting characters in the book was at one time voted TV’s greatest villain: Spencer Pratt, a reality TV star on MTV’s “The Hills.” He’s basically one of these people who became famous almost for nothing. But what Pratt figured out really early was the power of narrative, which allowed him to become famous through, as he put it, “manipulating the media.” In the same week, I interviewed both Pratt and the person at the US State Department who’s in charge of the US government’s efforts to battle ISIS online. And Pratt, this California bro who’s talking about how to manipulate the media to get attention, understood more of what was playing out online than the person at the State Department. Spencer Pratt, a reality TV star… understood more of what was playing out online than the person at the State Department.” How much have online conflicts changed the rules in the last few years? First, the internet has left adolescence. It’s only just now starting to flex its muscles and deal with some of its responsibilities. The structure of the network changes how these battles play out. So, it’s this contest of both psychological but also algorithmic manipulation. What you see go across your screen on social media is not always decided by you. The rule makers of this global fight are a handful of Silicon Valley engineers. Another aspect of it is that social media has effectively rendered secrets of any consequence almost impossible to keep. As one CIA person put it to us, “secrets now come with a half-life.” Virality matters more than veracity; the truth doesn’t always win out. In fact, the truth can be buried underneath a sea of lies and likes. And the last part is that we’re all part of it. All of our decisions as individuals shape which side gets attention, and therefore which side wins out. But you highlight that this is playing out differently in China. Exactly. There are two different models shaping the internet, and shaping people’s behavior through the internet, playing out in the West and in China. Essentially, internet activity in China is all combined. Look at WeChat, which is used for everything from social media to mobile payment; it’s Amazon meets Facebook meets Pizza Hut delivery. And you combine that with an authoritarian government that’s had a multi-decade plan for building out surveillance, and you get the social credit system, which is like Orwellian surveillance crossed with marketing. The social credit system allows both companies and the government to mine and combine all the different points of information that an online citizen in China reveals of themselves, and then use that to create a single score – think of it as your financial credit score of your “trustworthiness.” For example, if you buy diapers your score goes up, because that indicates you’re a parent and a good parent. If you play video games for longer than an hour your score goes down because you’re wasting time online. And it’s all networked. Your friends and family know your score. It creates a soft form of collective censorship; if your brother posts something that’s critical of the government, you’re the one who goes to him and says, “Knock it off ’cause you’re hurting my score.” And you do that because the score has real consequences. Already it’s being used for everything from seating on trains and job applications to online dating. Your score literally shapes your romantic prospects. So, you have this massive global competition between Chinese tech companies and other global tech companies not only for access to markets, but also for whose vision of the internet is going to win out. How can companies win a “LikeWar”? Everyone’s wondering: What are the best ways to drive your message out there and have it triumph over others? The best companies I’ve seen create a narrative, have a story and have emotion – in particular, they have emotion that provokes a reaction of some kind. It’s all about planned authenticity. That sounds like a contradiction, but it’s about acting in ways that are genuine, but are also tailored because you’re aware that the world is watching you. A good comparison here is Wendy’s versus Hillary Clinton. Wendy’s is a hamburger chain – not a real person – but it acts and comes across as “authentic” online and has developed a massive following. They’re funny, irreverent. Yet Hillary Clinton – a very real person – never felt very authentic in her online messaging. And that’s because it involved a large number of people – by one account, 11 different people – all weighing in on what should be tweeted out. Inundation and experimentation are also key. Throwing not just one message out there, but massive amounts of them. Treating each message as both a kind of weapon, but also an experiment that allows you to then learn, refine, do it again, do it again, do it again. How do you measure and gauge battles online now? Is it just volume? It all depends on what your battle is, what your end goal is. Is it driving sales? Is it getting people to vote for you, to show up to your conference? This is what the US gets wrong about Russian propaganda and its disinformation campaigns. We think they’re designed to make people love or trust a government. From its very start back in the 1920s, the goal of propaganda coming from the Soviet Union, and today Russia, has been instead to make you distrust – distrust everything, disbelieve everything. And we can see it’s been incredibly effective for them. First, we need to recognize that we’re a part of the battle. In fact, we’re a target of most of the battles. How effective have disinformation campaigns actually been in the US? What can be done? One of the scariest and maybe saddest things we discovered is that the US is now the story that other nations point to as the example of what you don’t want to have happen. There’s no silver bullet, of course. But one example was something called the Active Measures Working Group, a Cold War organization that brought together the intelligence community, diplomats and communicators to identify incoming KGB disinformation campaigns and then develop responses to them. We’re dealing with the modern, way more effective online version of something similar, and we haven’t got anything like that. There are also digital literacy programs. I find it stunning that the US supports education programs to help citizens and kids in Ukraine learn about what to do and how to think about online disinformation, but we don’t do that for our own students. What can people like you or me do? First, we need to recognize that we’re a part of the battle. In fact, we’re a target of most of the battles. And we need to better understand how the platforms work that we use all the time. A majority of people actually still don’t understand how social media companies make money. The other is to seek out the truth. How do we do that? And the best way is to remember the ancient parable of the blind man and the elephant – don’t just rely on one source, pull from multiple different sources. That’s been proven in a series of academic studies as the best way to find the facts online. It’s not exactly new, but it’s effective. Where will the next online war be fought? The cell phone in your pocket, or if we’re being futuristic, the augmented reality glasses that you wear as you walk down the street. It’ll come from the keepsake videos that you play on them. If you want to know what comes next in the internet there have always been two places to go: university research labs and the porn industry. That’s been the case with webcams, chat rooms and so on. What we’re seeing playing out now are called “deep fakes,” which use artificial intelligence to create hyper-realistic videos and images. There’s also “madcoms,” which are hyper-realistic chat bots that make it seem like you’re talking to another person online. Combine the two, and the voices, the images, the information that we’ll increasingly see online might be fake, but hyper-realistic. The tools that militaries and tech companies are using to fight back against the AI-created deep fakes are other AI. So, the future of online conflict looks like it’ll be two AIs battling back and forth. Let me give you a historic parallel, because we’ve been dealing with these issues for a very long time. The first newspaper came when a German printer figured out a way to monetize his press’s downtime by publishing a weekly collection of news and advice. And in publishing the first newspaper, he created an entire industry, a new profession that sold information itself. And it created a market for something that had never before existed – but in creating that market, truth has often fallen by the wayside. One of the very first newspapers in America about a century later was called the New England Courant. It published a series of letters by a woman named Mrs. Silence Do-good. The actual writer of the letters was a 16-year-old apprentice at the newspaper named Benjamin Franklin, making him the founding father of fake news in America. In some sense it’s always been there, using deception and marketing to persuade people to your view.

U.S. isn't equipped to bust fake news - but Europe is

The U.S. has been rocked over the last two years by claims that the Russian government directly attempted to meddle in the 2016 presidential election. Thomas Holt argues the current campaign being waged against the U.S. is serious. He says it merits a response from a trusted source. Although there are fact-checking websites in the U.S. like Snopes, a threat of this magnitude requires more than just citizen-run or private organization-operated programs. "A government effort to combat fake news would provide citizens with information about the scope of information warfare. It would also create a clearinghouse about fake news that can inform not only the public, but also government agencies and policy-makers. There is no current effort of this sort in the United States." "It may seem odd to propose that the government run its own campaign to clarify what is real and fake online. But I believe it is necessary in an era where individuals may not be able to fully separate fact from fiction, and legitimate news sources from the disreputable. An effort like this is not government censorship of the news – or even of fake news. It is government fighting false information by providing context, analysis and facts." Source:

Baylor Horror Film Expert Lists 10 Movies 'Everyone Should See'

October brings pumpkin spice, changing leaves, cooler temperatures and Halloween. And Halloween, of course, brings horror films. James Kendrick, Ph.D., associate professor of film and digital media in Baylor University’s College of Arts & Sciences, is a Hollywood film historian and an expert on cult and horror films. While horror is not everyone’s favorite genre, Kendrick says, horror films are known to have a universal appeal. “We all know what it means to be frightened, to feel dread, to want to look away,” Kendrick said. “On some level we all fear death and are aware of our human mortality, and the best horror films engage that fear in complex and challenging ways.” In honor of Halloween, Kendrick has developed a list of 10 horror classics he says “everyone should see.” 1. Nosferatu (F.W. Murnau, 1922) 2. The Bride of Frankenstein (James Whale, 1935) 3. Cat People (Jacques Tourneur, 1942) 4. Psycho (Alfred Hitchcock, 1960) 5. Night of the Living Dead (George A. Romero, 1968) 6. The Exorcist (William Friedkin, 1973) 7. Suspiria (Dario Argento, 1977) 9. The Shining (Stanley Kubrick, 1980) 10. The Babadook (Jennifer Kent, 2014) James Kendrick, Ph.D., serves as associate professor of film and digital media in Baylor University’s College of Arts & Sciences. Kendrick’s primary research interests are post-Classical Hollywood film history, violence in the media, cult and horror films, media censorship and regulation and cinema and new technologies. He has authored three books: Darkness in the Bliss-Out: A Reconsideration of the Films of Steven Spielberg, Hollywood Bloodshed: Violence in the 1980s American Cinema and Film Violence: History, Ideology, Genre. In addition to this, he is also the film and video critic for the website Qnetwork.com. Kendrick is a member of the Society for Cinema and Media Studies, the University Film and Video Association and the Online Film Critics Society. Source: