ReportWire

Tag: Propaganda

  • Chatbots Are Pushing Sanctioned Russian Propaganda

    [ad_1]

    OpenAI’s ChatGPT, Google’s Gemini, DeepSeek, and xAI’s Grok are pushing Russian state propaganda from sanctioned entities—including citations from Russian state media, sites tied to Russian intelligence or pro-Kremlin narratives—when asked about the war against Ukraine, according to a new report.

    Researchers from the Institute of Strategic Dialogue (ISD) claim that Russian propaganda has targeted and exploited data voids—where searches for real-time data provide few results from legitimate sources—to promote false and misleading information. Almost one-fifth of responses to questions about Russia’s war in Ukraine, across the four chatbots they tested, cited Russian state-attributed sources, the ISD research claims.

    “It raises questions regarding how chatbots should deal when referencing these sources, considering many of them are sanctioned in the EU,” says Pablo Maristany de las Casas, an analyst at the ISD who led the research. The findings raise serious questions about the ability of large language models (LLMs) to restrict sanctioned media in the EU, which is a growing concern as more people use AI chatbots as an alternative to search engines to find information in real time, the ISD claims. For the six-month period ending September 30, 2025, ChatGPT search had approximately 120.4 million average monthly active recipients in the European Union according to OpenAI data.

    The researchers asked the chatbots 300 neutral, biased, and “malicious” questions relating to the perception of NATO, peace talks, Ukraine’s military recruitment’ Ukrainian refugees, and war crimes committed during the Russian invasion of Ukraine. The researchers used separate accounts for each query in English, Spanish, French, German, and Italian in an experiment in July. The same propaganda issues are still present in October, Maristany de las Casas says.

    Amid widespread sanctions imposed on Russia since its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, European officials have sanctioned at least 27 Russian media sources for spreading disinformation and distorting facts as part of its “strategy of destabilizing” Europe and other nations.

    The ISD research says chatbots cited Sputnik Globe, Sputnik China, RT (formerly Russia Today), EADaily, the Strategic Culture Foundation, and the R-FBI. Some of the chatbots also cited Russian disinformation networks and Russian journalists or influencers that amplified Kremlin narratives, the research says. Similar previous research has also found 10 of the most popular chatbots mimicking Russian narratives.

    OpenAI spokesperson Kate Waters tells WIRED in a statement that the company takes steps “to prevent people from using ChatGPT to spread false or misleading information, including such content linked to state-backed actors,” adding that these are long-standing issues that the company is attempting to address by improving its model and platforms.

    [ad_2]

    Matt Burgess, Natasha Bernal

    Source link

  • How China’s Propaganda and Surveillance Systems Really Operate

    [ad_1]

    A trove of internal documents leaked from a little-known Chinese company has pulled back the curtain on how digital censorship tools are being marketed and exported globally. Geedge Networks sells what amounts to a commercialized “Great Firewall” to at least four countries, including Kazakhstan, Pakistan, Ethiopia, and Myanmar. The groundbreaking leak shows in granular detail the capabilities this company has to monitor, intercept, and hack internet traffic. Researchers who examined the files described it as “digital authoritarianism as a service.”

    But I want to focus on another thing the documents demonstrate: While people often look at China’s Great Firewall as a single, all-powerful government system unique to China, the actual process of developing and maintaining it works the same way as surveillance technology in the West. Geedge collaborates with academic institutions on research and development, adapts its business strategy to fit different clients’ needs, and even repurposes leftover infrastructure from its competitors. In Pakistan, for example, Geedge landed a contract to work with and later replace gear made by the Canadian company Sandvine, the leaked files show.

    Coincidentally, another leak from a different Chinese company published this week reinforces the same point. On Monday, researchers at Vanderbilt University made public a 399-page document from GoLaxy, a Chinese company that uses AI to analyze social media and generate propaganda materials. The leaked documents, which include internal pitch decks, business goals, and meeting notes, may have come from a disgruntled former employee—the last two pages accuse GoLaxy of mistreating workers by underpaying them and mandating long hours. The document had been sitting on the open internet for months before another researcher flagged it to Brett Goldstein, a research professor in the School of Engineering at Vanderbilt.

    GoLaxy’s main business is different from Geedge’s: It collects open source information from social media, maps relationships among political figures and news organizations, and pushes targeted narratives online through synthetic social media profiles. In the leaked document, GoLaxy claims to be the “number one brand in intelligence big data analysis” in China, servicing three main customers: the Chinese Communist Party, the Chinese government, and the Chinese military. The included technology demos focus heavily on geopolitical issues like Taiwan, Hong Kong, and US elections. And unlike Geedge, GoLaxy seems to be targeting only domestic government entities as clients.

    But there are also quite a few things that make the two companies comparable, particularly in terms of how their businesses function. Both Geedge and GoLaxy maintain close relationships with the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS), the top government-affiliated research institution in the world, according to the Nature Index. And they both market their services to Chinese provincial-level government agencies, who have localized issues they want to monitor and budgets to spend on surveillance and propaganda tools.

    GoLaxy didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment from WIRED. In a previous response to The New York Times, the company denied collecting data targeting US officials and called the outlet’s reporting misinformation. Vanderbilt researchers say they witnessed the company remove pages from its website after the initial reporting.

    Closer Than They Seem

    In the West, when academic scholars see opportunities to commercialize their cutting-edge research, they often become startup founders or start side businesses. GoLaxy seems to be no exception. Many key researchers at the company, according to the leaked document, still occupy spots at CAS.

    But there’s no guarantee that CAS researchers will get government grants—just like a public university professor in the US can’t bet on their startup winning federal contracts. Instead, they need to go after government agencies like any private company would go after clients. One document in the leak shows that GoLaxy assigned sales targets to five employees and was aiming to secure 42 million RMB (about $5.9 million) in contracts with Chinese government agencies in 2020. Another spreadsheet from around 2021 lists the company’s current clients, which include branches of the Chinese military, state security, and provincial police departments, as well as other potential customers it was targeting.

    [ad_2]

    Zeyi Yang, Louise Matsakis

    Source link

  • Steve Bannon Is Out of Prison and Spreading Lies Online

    Steve Bannon Is Out of Prison and Spreading Lies Online

    [ad_1]

    Steve Bannon got out of federal prison at around 3 am Tuesday. Seven hours later, he was live on his War Room podcast to “flood the zone with shit” exactly one week before the presidential election.

    Flooding the zone with shit is Bannon’s own oft-quoted description of his media strategy: churning so many lies or half-truths into the stratosphere that it becomes impossible to draw a line between fact and fiction.

    “I am more energized and more focused than I’ve ever been in my entire life,” said Bannon on the War Room stream on Rumble, which garnered nearly 100,000 live viewers at one point. “The four months in federal prison not only didn’t break me, it empowered me.”

    Bannon, 70, a longtime ally of and former strategist for Donald Trump, spent four months at a low-security federal prison in Danbury, Connecticut, for contempt after he defied a subpoena in the congressional probe into the January 6 Capitol riot.

    Bannon has cast himself as a martyr—someone who, like January 6 rioters and like Trump, is being unfairly persecuted by the same tyrannical forces they’re up against next week in the election.

    On Tuesday on air, and later at a press conference, Bannon repeatedly suggested that former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi banished him to prison because she wanted to contain his influence.

    “If you’re not prepared to be sent to federal prison as a political prisoner, then you’re not worthy to be in this movement,” he said. “You have to understand, they want to put you in prison, and they will put you in prison. If you can’t accept that, then you don’t know what they represent.”

    Bannon’s return to the public sphere also means the return of a massive mouthpiece to amplify the election fraud conspiracies that are already raging online. And Bannon got directly to business, spinning a tale to his viewers of Democrats plotting to heist the 2024 election.

    “Every day after November 5 is going to be Stalingrad,” Bannon said. “If they can’t take it away from Trump, if they can’t nullify it right there, they want to at least delegitimize his victory.”

    “They will go to any length to stop President Trump,” Bannon continued. “That’s the reality.”

    A 2023 Brookings study on disinformation in political podcasts identified Bannon’s War Room as the biggest disseminator of falsehoods and unsubstantiated claims; about a fifth of all episodes assessed by researchers were determined to have claims flagged as false by debunkers such as Snopes and Politifact.

    “If the Pelosi apparatus wins, you better be prepared to go to federal prison,” Bannon said. “Because these people have no qualms about weaponizing the justice system, weaponizing the legal system, against Americans who have different political views.”

    His fans seem to be happy he’s back. “God Bless You Steve’ Get The Bannon Sledge Hammer Out, And Start Smashing The TRAITORS,” one viewer wrote during the Tuesday livestream.

    “Welcome back Steve, we need our leader,” wrote another. “Give us our marching orders and lets get this done.”

    [ad_2]

    Tess Owen

    Source link

  • Information Pollution: The Tragedy of the Commons and Well-Poisoning on the Internet

    Information Pollution: The Tragedy of the Commons and Well-Poisoning on the Internet

    [ad_1]

    Discover how the internet propagates “information pollution” and how it threatens our collective understanding of facts and truth. Here’s how to navigate the chaos and find clean water to drink.


    In a healthy and functional society, shared common resources are essential for the well-being and sustainability of the community.

    These resources can include natural goods such as land, water, and the environment, as well as man-made goods such as public schools, parks, and libraries.

    Generally, the ability to manage, sustain, and distribute these resources determines the success of a society, community, or nation as a whole.

    The Tragedy of the Commons

    The tragedy of the commons is a concept introduced by ecologist Garrett Hardin in 1968, describing a scenario where individuals, acting in their own self-interest, overuse and deplete a shared resource, ultimately harming the entire community.

    Classic examples include overgrazing on common land, overfishing in shared waters, and pollution of air and water. The key issue is that while the benefits of exploitation are enjoyed by individuals, the costs are distributed among the entire community.

    Information as a Shared Resource

    One common resource that is often neglected is news and information.

    Over the last century, newspapers, radio, TV, and the internet have become the lifeblood of many nations, shaping public opinion and collective consciousness.

    Truth and reliable information function as shared resources critical for various societal functions, including governance, public health, and social interaction.

    Just as a community depends on clean water, society relies on accurate information to make decisions, build trust, and maintain peace and harmony.

    When these information resources are polluted, the consequences can be severe, leading to mistrust, division, and poor decision-making.

    Information Pollution

    Information is a shared resource that is susceptible to degradation through neglect or deliberate actions, leading to a type of “information pollution.”

    This phenomenon mirrors the “tragedy of the commons,” where the self-interested actions of individuals can spoil a common resource for everyone.

    Information pollution occurs when false, misleading, or harmful information is introduced into the public discourse. This can happen through:

    • Misinformation: Incorrect or misleading information spread unintentionally.
    • Disinformation: False information spread deliberately to deceive.
    • Malinformation: Information that is true but presented in a misleading context to cause harm.

    All three types of information pollution hurt people’s ability to discern truth from fiction.

    Well-Poisoning on the Internet

    The internet can be a wonderful place to learn new things, but it’s also littered with information pollution, especially on social media sites filled with bots, spammers, and grifters.

    When a water well is poisoned, everyone in the town ends up drinking dirty and contaminated water. The same is true for information pollution on the internet – and social media is dirty water.

    There are a lot of factors that drive information pollution on the internet, but key ones include:

    • Clickbait and engagement farming – For most people, the only measure of success on the internet is how much attention you get. An outrageous lie or falsehood will get a million impressions before anyone tries to confirm what’s been said. People rarely correct themselves if a lie is getting them a lot of impressions.
    • Grifting and easy money – Many people see the internet as an opportunity for a quick buck, so a lot of content you see is purely money-driven, including advertisements, sponsored content, or superficial merchandise (mugs, t-shirts, diet supplements, brain enhancement pills, etc.) If you see anyone selling these types of products on the internet, you can be certain that truth is not their main motivation.
    • Bots and algorithm-hacking – Artificial engagement on the internet is a huge problem. A lot of viral content you see these days is pushed by bot farms and clever algorithm manipulation. Organic growth by independent thinkers and creators used to be a genuine thing about a decade ago, but most big e-celebrities and influencers you see today are completely astroturfed.
    • Politics and propaganda – A lot of misinformation and disinformation is politically driven propaganda. Governments and corporations are known to create their own bots and internet campaigns to shape public opinion in one direction or another.
    • Echo chambers and groupthink – While it’s natural to associate with people who think like us and share the same beliefs, the internet tends to heighten this tendency. People only spend time on online spaces that confirm their existing beliefs and very rarely seek out different perspectives.

    All of these factors make the internet a less reliable place for seeking truth and information. These phenomenon have only increased over the past decade, making the internet increasingly harmful and stupid (to be frank).

    Filtering Dirty Water

    Now more than ever we need to find ways to filter the information we are being exposed to online. Effective strategies you can employ include:

    • Pay attention to your digital environment – Ideas and information can often seep into our brain without us even realizing it, especially when we are consistently exposed to the same information over and over again. What are the top five websites you visit? Where do you go for news and current events? What’s your social media feed look like? All of these make up a part of your digital environment which is having an influence on you whether you realize it or not, so pay close attention to the types of online spaces you’re spending time in.
    • High value vs. low value information – Not all information is created equal. A random social media post that goes viral doesn’t have the same level of rigor as a peer-reviewed study. The information pyramid is a helpful guideline for assessing what information sources tend to be more trustworthy, accurate, and high value. Please note that this doesn’t mean a social media post is always wrong, or a scientific study is always right, just that one source tends to have more substance than another and you should generally give it more weight.
    • Be your own fact-checker – Too many people take funny memes, shocking screenshots, and catchy headlines at face value without ever digging deeper. This causes a lot of misinformation and disinformation to go viral, and it can also lead to some comical and embarrassing errors (“You actually believed that?!”). While there are many professional “fact checkers” on various sites, even those can be misleading and ideologically motivated. Unfortunately, in our low trust information world, there’s only one fact-checker you can really count on and that’s yourself. Learn how to double-check sources, dig up original links, and read full articles so you understand the context before accepting something as true.
    • Learn basic statistical literacy – Numbers can be very persuasive on a purely psychological level; if someone can make a claim with a statistic to back it, we tend to automatically think it must be true. However, statistics and graphs can be easily manipulated and deceptive. Understanding basic statistical literacy (such as knowing “correlation doesn’t mean causation,” or checking the “y” and “x” axis before looking at a graph) can give you a clearer idea of what a number is really telling you, and what is just being speculated, guessed, or misunderstood.
    • Beware of personality-driven consumption – Many people get their news and information from famous personalities such as news commentators, celebrities, influencers, or podcasters. While it’s natural to listen to people we like and trust, this can backfire when we end up mindlessly accepting information rather than confirming it on its own merit. For many, there’s an entertainment factor too: it’s fun to root for your “leader/clan” and make fun of the other “leaders/clans,” some people even form parasocial relationships with their favorite personalities, seeing them as a type of best friend. However, what often happens in these hyper personality-driven spaces is that they devolve into petty drama and gossip. That may be “fun” to participate in for some people, but it’s not education.

    If you keep these guidelines in mind, you’ll be able to navigate the dirty waters of the internet more effectively and hopefully find some springs of fresh and clean water to drink from.

    Conclusion

    Truth and reliable information are vital commons that underpin a healthy and functional society. Just as communities must manage natural resources responsibly to avoid the tragedy of the commons, societies must actively protect and nurture the integrity of their information ecosystems. Each of us plays a role in managing the information commons and minimizing information pollution.


    Enter your email to stay updated on new articles in self improvement:

    [ad_2]

    Steven Handel

    Source link

  • Foreign Influence Campaigns Don’t Know How to Use AI Yet Either

    Foreign Influence Campaigns Don’t Know How to Use AI Yet Either

    [ad_1]

    Today, OpenAI released its first threat report, detailing how actors from Russia, Iran, China, and Israel have attempted to use its technology for foreign influence operations across the globe. The report named five different networks that OpenAI identified and shut down between 2023 and 2024. In the report, OpenAI reveals that established networks like Russia’s Doppleganger and China’s Spamoflauge are experimenting with how to use generative AI to automate their operations. They’re also not very good at it.

    And while it’s a modest relief that these actors haven’t mastered generative AI to become unstoppable forces for disinformation, it’s clear that they’re experimenting, and that alone should be worrying.

    The OpenAI report reveals that influence campaigns are running up against the limits of generative AI, which doesn’t reliably produce good copy or code. It struggles with idioms—which make language sound more reliably human and personal—and also sometimes with basic grammar (so much so that OpenAI named one network “Bad Grammar.”) The Bad Grammar network was so sloppy that it once revealed its true identity: “As an AI language model, I am here to assist and provide the desired comment,” it posted.

    One network used ChatGPT to debug code that would allow it to automate posts on Telegram, a chat app that has long been a favorite of extremists and influence networks. This worked well sometimes, but other times it led to the same account posting as two separate characters, giving away the game.

    In other cases, ChatGPT was used to create code and content for websites and social media. Spamoflauge, for instance, used ChatGPT to debug code to create a WordPress website that published stories attacking members of the Chinese diaspora who were critical of the country’s government.

    According to the report, the AI-generated content didn’t manage to break out from the influence networks themselves into the mainstream, even when shared on widely used platforms like X, Facebook, and Instagram. This was the case for campaigns run by an Israeli company seemingly working on a for-hire basis and posting content that ranged from anti-Qatar to anti-BJP, the Hindu-nationalist party currently in control of the Indian government.

    Taken altogether, the report paints a picture of several relatively ineffective campaigns with crude propaganda, seemingly allaying fears that many experts have had about the potential for this new technology to spread mis- and disinformation, particularly during a crucial election year.

    But influence campaigns on social media often innovate over time to avoid detection, learning the platforms and their tools, sometimes better than the employees of the platforms themselves. While these initial campaigns may be small or ineffective, they appear to be still in the experimental stage, says Jessica Walton, a researcher with the CyberPeace Institute who has studied Doppleganger’s use of generative AI.

    In her research, the network would use real-seeming Facebook profiles to post articles, often around divisive political topics. “The actual articles are written by generative AI,” she says. “And mostly what they’re trying to do is see what will fly, what Meta’s algorithms will and won’t be able to catch.”

    In other words, expect them only to get better from here.

    [ad_2]

    Vittoria Elliott

    Source link

  • Fliers with ‘hate propaganda,’ conspiracy theories dumped on driveways in Fresno

    Fliers with ‘hate propaganda,’ conspiracy theories dumped on driveways in Fresno

    [ad_1]

    Police are investigating after plastic bags filled with fliers containing hate messages and conspiracy theories were thrown onto residential driveways in Fresno Friday morning.

    Residents in a suburban neighborhood found the bags and reported them to authorities, the Fresno Police Department said in a statement. Police canvassed the neighborhood — which authorities did not identify — to remove any additional fliers and search for any homes or businesses that could have useful video surveillance.

    The recovered fliers do not contain “direct threats to any members of our community,” authorities said, but rather “general hate propaganda and unfounded conspiracy theories.”

    “This is currently being investigated as a hate incident,” the department said in its statement.

    Police did not disclose the fliers’ contents, but The Fresno Bee reported they contained antisemitic, homophobic and misogynistic rhetoric.

    This is far from the first sudden appearance of hate-filled and antisemitic fliers in California. Recent years have seen such fliers anonymously littered or posted in communities including Los Angeles, Beverly Hills and Redlands, as well as in Orange County.

    Anyone with information about this latest incident is encouraged to contact the Fresno Police Department at (559) 621-7000.

    [ad_2]

    Nathan Solis

    Source link

  • Rachel Maddow’s ‘Prequel’ is a deceptively framed history of the radical right

    Rachel Maddow’s ‘Prequel’ is a deceptively framed history of the radical right

    [ad_1]

    Prequel: An American Fight Against Fascism, by Rachel Maddow, Crown, 416 pages, $32

    “American democracy itself was under attack from enemies within and without,” Rachel Maddow writes in Prequel: An American Fight Against Fascism. If you’re not sure whether she is speaking of the past or the present, that’s because she wants to conflate the two.

    Prequel is a deeply flawed and deceptively framed history of right-wing radicalism in the United States on the eve of American entry into World War II. Maddow’s treatment of this well-worn topic draws principally from primary sources generated from the protagonists of her story, a collection of private spies and anti-fascist activists, as well as contemporary press reporting, sundry government documents, and a narrow base of secondary sources, one that noticeably omits prominent works in the field. Deficiencies in her sources, methods, and analyses make for a book that recapitulates past passions at the expense of sober reflection and reality.

    Maddow opens with her strongest case study, covering the German-born Nazi agent George Sylvester Viereck, who tried to push Americans toward neutrality by using personal connections with Congress to spread noninterventionist literature. She then switches focus to her weakest case study, that of populist Democratic governor and senator Huey “Kingfish” Long and his influence on the Nazi sympathizers Philip Johnson and Gerald L.K. Smith. Maddow does not clarify why Long, who died in 1935, is discussed here. But her tone and source selection imply that she agrees with the Kingfish’s contemporary critics that his populism and demagoguery made him a proto-fascist and a political gateway drug for more radical figures, like Johnson and Smith.

    Maddow then abruptly changes focus to the dark history of American segregation and its influence on Nazi racial science, following the German lawyer Heinrich Krieger’s travels through the American South. Then she circles back to more-prominent characters, such as the American fascist Lawrence Dennis, the antisemitic preacher Charles Coughlin, and the abstruse spiritualist (and leader of the fascist Silver Shirts) William Dudley Pelley, among others.

    The book’s first half is occasionally productive. The chapter on Pelley does a good job of exploring the roots of his ideology: his conflation of anti-communism with antisemitism, his eclectic spiritualism, his millenarian Christianity. And the chapter on American race law is a haunting look at how American legislatures maintained racial hierarchy and what the Nazis learned from their practices.

    But what narrative value she creates is relinquished by her analytical leaps, which conflate fascism with phenomena that were already well-grounded in American life well before the 1920s. And Maddow never directly states the size and scope of the groups she covers, such as the German American Bund and the Silver Shirts; instead we get such vague phrases as “many,” “a lot,” and “an insane number.” This makes it easier to confuse the breadth of Maddow’s cast of characters for the depth of their influence. (According to historian Francis MacDonnell’s Insidious Foes, the German American Bund never attracted more than 25,000 members and the Silver Shirts maxed out at 15,000.)

    The book’s meandering journey narrows in later chapters, as Maddow argues that German propaganda had a pervasive influence on “isolationist” congressmen. She presents the propagandists’ efforts as far more effective than they were, giving the impression that they were the root of Americans’ general desire to stay out of World War II. She pays only lip service to the deeper roots of “isolationism,” with a mere passing reference to the fallout from World War I. She does not mention the post-WWI revelations of Allied and American propaganda, the widespread alarm at the armaments industry’s intimate relationship with the government, or the Great War’s domestic abuses of civil liberties. (When Sen. Ernest Lundeen (R–Minn.) denounces a draft bill as “nothing short of slavery,” she dismisses him as “shrill.”) Instead, she writes as though the desire to remain neutral simply stemmed from abroad, stripping noninterventionism of its historical context and arguing that the “threads of isolationism, antisemitism, and fascism were becoming an ominously tight weave.”

    To make her case, Maddow retells a well-worn story about Viereck’s use of the congressional frank, a taxpayer-funded mailing service, to distribute what Maddow calls “pro-German mailings.” In fact, it was predominately literature that advocated neutrality. As historian Douglas M. Charles argued in J. Edgar Hoover and the Anti-interventionists, “All Viereck managed to accomplish was a wider distribution of anti-interventionist literature that, in any event, did not lead Americans to reassess their views on the Allies.”

    Her book culminates in the 1944 sedition trial, in which the United States federal government charged a heterogeneous and largely unaffiliated assortment of 30 defendants, which included far-right figures like George Sylvester Viereck, Lawrence Dennis, and William Dudley Pelley, for sedition under the 1940 Smith Act. She presents the episode as a missed opportunity to uproot homegrown fascism. In fact, the Justice Department filed its flimsy charges on politically motivated grounds—a clear threat to constitutionally protected speech and association, no matter how unsympathetic the defendants could be.

    Throughout Prequel, Maddow displays a systemically uncritical use of her source material, frequently presenting the self-gratifying hyperbole of fascist propagandists and the motivated reasoning of anti-fascist reporters as gospel.

    Whether she knows it or not, Maddow is dredging up a thesis from the past, written in the wake of World War II when passions were high and perspectives blinkered. This view does have some academic adherents, and she cites their work: Bradley W. Hart’s Hitler’s American Friends, James Q. Whitman’s Hitler’s American Model, Sarah Churchwell’s Behold, America, Steven J. Ross’s Hitler in Los Angeles, and others. But she drives her thesis beyond the confines of her evidence in a manner that these scholars do not. Hart, for example, hedges where Maddow does not, acknowledging that the “United States was not at risk of an imminent fascist takeover in the late 1930s” when he argues that there was “fertile terrain in which dictatorship might be able to take root.” Yet Maddow leaves the impression that there was a risk of an imminent fascist takeover in the 1930s, with German propaganda fertilizing that fertile terrain.

    Meanwhile, there is a sizeable body of work that challenges Maddow’s thesis and that of her source material. Such works include established scholarship such as Leo Ribuffo’s The Old Christian Right, Deborah Lipstadt’s Beyond Belief, and Bruce Kuklick’s recent Fascism Comes to America, to name a few. While these works do not downplay the pernicious ideologies of the far right nor their presence in American life, they do not sensationalize or dehistoricize them nor assign them more influence than they deserve. Lipstadt, who has devoted much of her career to combating the radical right’s penchant for Holocaust denial, dedicated an entire chapter of Beyond Belief to challenging American anxieties about a Nazi “fifth column”—the very fears that Maddow is trying to resurrect. While Nazi Germany did have spies and propagandists in the U.S., Lipstadt cautioned that “they never constituted a network with the scope and power the press attributed them.”

    In Insidious Foes, MacDonnell argues that while odious and illiberal, right-wing extremists “never posed any real danger to the republic”; instead, a media echo chamber constructed the perception of a vast and powerful far right. He also makes a good case that Germany’s propaganda effort was “spectacularly unsuccessful” and ultimately did more damage to the noninterventionist cause than it aided it. Ribuffo‘s classic The Old Christian Right (a work that Maddow mentions in her author’s note but does not cite) similarly argued that the fear of these groups was a “brown scare” that often “exaggerated both [the far right’s] power and its Axis connections.”

    How does Maddow square her findings with those of these earlier works? We do not know, because she does not tell us.

    In closing the book, Maddow invites the reader to take inspiration from the work of Americans who sought to stop homegrown fascists by “any means at hand,” assessing their legacies as worth remembering and emulating. Yet Maddow omits the pernicious legacy that followed from using “any means at hand” and violating the very norms her heroes sought to protect. They created the destructive and restrictive myth of isolationism, which held that it was an absence of American power from the world’s stage that directly led to the rise of fascism abroad. They actively colluded with a foreign power—Great Britain—to interfere in American elections and manipulate American media. And they helped stoke the panic that led to Japanese internment and spurred the growth of the domestic security state. The latter, ironically, soon boomeranged against the left.

    Those legacies are also worth remembering if we are to preserve liberty from an ever-present threat—not from enemies within our ranks or outside our walls, but within ourselves.

    [ad_2]

    Brandan P. Buck

    Source link

  • How Many COVID Deaths Will Chinese Protesters Accept?

    How Many COVID Deaths Will Chinese Protesters Accept?

    [ad_1]

    Anti-lockdown protests erupted across China following a deadly apartment fire in Xinjiang last week. The country’s zero-COVID policy may have been to blame, as first responders were apparently restricted from accessing the scene. Heavy-handed quarantines and endless testing are causing many harms, including food shortages and widespread unemployment. But they’re also keeping China’s COVID death toll very, very low: A study out in May from Nature Medicine, led by Shanghai researchers, estimated that without these strict measures in place, a massive wave of new Omicron infections could overwhelm critical-care units and leave 1.55 million people dead. As protesters call on the government to loosen up, how do they make sense of this potential trade-off?

    Few, if any, of the people in the street are asking for a total rollback of the country’s COVID measures. Global public-health experts and China scholars who have been following the protests either from the ground in China or through contacts overseas told me that the movement lacks a precise set of demands. In general, however, the protesters have expressed a wish for easing restrictions, rather than a to-hell-with-it approach. They may not be opposed to post-exposure quarantine, for example, but they’d like to do it in their homes rather than inside government facilities. And footage of the demonstrations shows that many of the protesters are wearing masks (presumably to protect themselves from the coronavirus) even as they agitate for less aggressive testing programs and greater freedom of movement.

    It’s not that people don’t understand the seriousness of COVID, especially in a nation where only two-thirds of those over the age of 80 are fully vaccinated. “People are very much aware of COVID infection, and to some extent, they may even overestimate some of the immediate health risks,” Jeremiah Jenne, a historian and writer based in Beijing, told me. Propaganda circulated by the government has painted other countries as being overrun with deaths from the disease, and China as the only place where people can be safe. But a growing number of citizens, particularly in urban areas and among those who are more internationally aware, are adjusting how they weigh the risks of COVID against the economic hardships and other costs of permanent, draconian restrictions.

    The World Cup has helped fuel this change in attitude, China scholars told me. David Moser, a professor at Beijing Capital Normal University who’s been in China for 35 years, pointed to the broadcasts of the matches, which showed crowds of unmasked people in the stands, leading undisturbed lives. Chinese observers “got a sense that other countries are handling this by self-quarantining, by allowing a certain amount of infections, and letting people make their own medical decisions,” he said. Protesters may not expect to venture into stadiums without a mask anytime soon, or travel without restrictions, but they would like to see some steps in that direction. “They’re asking for a plan that provides an effective way to deal with the pandemic and keep people safe,” Jenne said, “not to go to Paris in March.”

    Xi Chen, a health-policy professor at the Yale School of Public Health, told me that many young people protesting think the risks are much smaller than the ones described in the study from last May, which predicted 1.55 million deaths. “I was circulating the number from that Nature paper to younger friends in my network earlier this year, [and] they don’t buy this idea.” They know that easing off the zero-COVID policy will lead to people dying, but they don’t imagine it would reach that scale. According to Chen, some protesters are asking that public resources be prioritized for helping older adults and other vulnerable people in an attempt to mitigate the harm. The Nature study, for what it’s worth, estimated that if the Chinese government could fill the gaps in vaccination and provide shots for every eligible senior, the death toll from a rampant COVID outbreak would be roughly 600,000, while adding widespread use of antiviral therapies would drive it down much further. (The numbers from that model might not be exactly right, says Albert Ko, an infectious-disease epidemiologist and physician at the Yale School of Public Health, but they’re within the realm of possibility. “Whether it’s 1 million or 1.5 million or 2 million, that’s a huge burden.”)

    Whatever the costs, the protesters are convinced that the zero-COVID policy is unsustainable. Public-health experts agree. “The government should address these concerns, because without jobs, people cannot pay for food and medications,” Chen said. In the end, China will need to navigate reopening while attempting to mitigate loss, Ko told me. “This should have been done much earlier.”

    [ad_2]

    Zoya Qureshi

    Source link