#but it also erodes trust in government

[narse-tantalus]

Since I just saw a post on the same blog about countering the spread of misinformation using the SIFT method I'm going to apply it here.

Stop

Is this post provoking an emotional response? Yes

Is it trying to? Also yes.

What do I already know about the source? Twitter screenshots on Tumblr are unreliable. I know nothing about the linked pmc19.com but it doesn't look like a government or university website url.

Investigate (The Source)

What can you find about the author/website creators?

the link to pmc19.com/data resolves, and that website does seem to be the source of these claims, although the current numbers are slightly off those reported in the tweets, likely because we're a week later.

pmc19.com links to a PDF with "Background on Dr. Hoerger and the PMC". There they discuss how Dr. Hoerger (who claims copyright of the webpage at the bottom) is trained in clinical psychology, has taught and was doing an MBA in 2019 on strategic management. It claims he's "an expert in personality, emotions, and affective decision science..." and mentions he did a masters degree wich involved a lot of stuff... And also epidemiology.

The PMC is apparently "The Pandemic Mitigation Collaborative" with unnamed members who have " led many projects to keep people safer during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic." and "The PMC dashboard is cited in grant applications, including at least two grants already funded. It has been cited by trusted organizations like the People’s CDC, news outlets, and scientific journals, including several papers published in JAMA journals."

Which really sounds like they think I should trust them at least as much as I trust people who write grants, and/or "The People's CDC" -- this makes me think they are unlikely to be an accurate source.

Here's Dr. Hoerger's bio at Louisiana Cancer research center:

https://www.louisianacancercenter.org/people/michael-hoerger-phd

It says "Dr. Hoerger conducts psychosocial research to reduce the emotional and physical burden of serious illnesses. Dr. Hoerger is an international expert in psychosocial oncology as well as pandemic mitigation." And the lists a bunch of psychology stuff. Literally never mentions pandemics again. If he's an "international expert in pandemic mitigation" a) I'd expect him to work somewhere other than a Cancer center b) I'd expect his bio to mention his pandemic mitigation work. Maybe he's new to all this pandemic stuff? He certainly doesn't claim to be an epidemiologist on the pmc website, just to have worked on a project that involves it.

When I google "The Pandemic Mitigation Collaborative" the second result is this webpage which questions their methodology and suggests that their model is incapable of making accurate predictions -- claiming it's always going to be biased towards whatever happened on the same dates last year -- both low and high. (I'm summarizing and interpreting a huge amount here,so read it yourself, and the source is just a blog post so not intrinsically more credible...) But it is note worthy that the main 3rd party discussion of this organization is someone questioning the utility of their predictions.

https://buttondown.com/abbycartus/archive/we-need-to-talk-about-the-pandemic-mitigation/

What is their mission? Do they have vested interests? Would their assessment be biased?

Their mission seems to be to "track" or predict cases of covid -- but like better than the real CDC and epidemiologists. Presumably this is born out of concern for immunocompromised individuals, or boredom, or needing a project for a Strategic Management MBA, or distrust of Official Sources.

They appear to have a vested interest in pandemic mitigation, and therefore alarmism and possibly in not agreeing with official sources. Their assessment may well be biased!

Do they have authority in the Area?

No. They mention precisely 0 epidemiologists working for or with them. I don't see a reason to trust their models more than my physics grad student friends who made pandemic models on a lark in 2020.

Find Better Coverage

The official CDC (Centers for Disease Control) webpage on Covid data is here:

https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#datatracker-home

It indicates lower numbers than last year for everything they track, numbers that are kind of ticking up in recent weeks, but numbers that are forecast (if I'm reading that right) to reach a smaller peak than in prior years.

Notably the CDC is not making any directly comparable claims about number of people infected or infectious. Or how many might be infected next month. I believe this is because these are fundamentally unknowable from the data they have, and that speculating on them would be irresponsible for public communicators of science. Sure, one could create models that predict those numbers, but publishing the results to the public without context on the uncertainties of the models would be irresponsible since people might make life or death decisions like wearing a mask or getting a vaccine based on those bad predictions. Or they might just rage at people online who disagree with them. Idk, I'm not a science communicator.

Don't trust the CDC? Tough. The New York Times ended their own covid tracking in 2023 saying:

After more than three years of daily reporting of coronavirus data in the United States, The New York Times is ending its Covid-19 data-gathering operation. The Times will continue to publish virus data from the federal government weekly on a new set of tracking pages, but this page will no longer be updated.

This change was spurred by the declining availability of virus data from state and local health officials. Since few states report more than once a week (and some no longer report data to the public at all), the weekly data reports from the C.D.C. have become the most reliable source of information on the virus’s spread.

There new webpage is here and it was last updated in March 2024, it says:

These Covid tracking pages are no longer being updated. Get the latest information from the Centers for Disease Control, or find archived data from The Times’s three year reporting effort here.

John's Hopkins University has this to say:

On March 10, 2023, the Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center ceased collecting and reporting of global COVID-19 data. For updated cases, deaths, and vaccine data please visit the following sources: Global: World Health Organization (WHO) U.S.: U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)

So yeah, reputable sources have stopped caring and link you to the CDC as the place to get your info.

Trace Claims, Quotes, and Media to their Original Context

The pmc19.com website does appear to be the original context for these claims. Thank you OP for linking that.

My Verdict:

These claims are misinformation. Specifically they claim numbers that are based on a model that was not created by subject matter experts, that disagrees with the trends reported by the CDC and it's epidemiologists. Either government employed epidemiologists are wrong and no university epidemiologists want to call them out on it... Or the PMC is wrong. Since they aren't epidemiologists... They're probably wrong. Moreover: If you don't trust the CDC you shouldn't The PMC because in their technical apendix they claim to use CDC data to make their projections. The only way the PMC could be right is if all other epidemiologists are wrong about the COVID pandemic and how to interpret wastewater and hospitalization data.

The PMC and Dr. Hoerger are engaging in academic sounding BS. They have incentives to be alarmist and fear monger, and don't seem to care or understand that they're using a model that probably doesn't have predictive value.

Data source: https://pmc19.com/data/

[mariacallous]

Americans need to log off. Unplug. Shoot the TV. It seems impossible. Less than five days from Election Day in the US, most people can’t help but check the news—or TikTok or X—at least once a day. Swipe, refresh, repeat. By Tuesday, the connectedness will be constant. Mentally, political stress takes a huge toll. Given that anxiety can be exacerbated by uncertainty, the 2024 election feels worse than it has ever before. There’s a reason for that.

I don’t just mean the general sky-is-falling stuff—the militias on Facebook organizing ballot-box stakeouts, the conspiracy theory spreaders, the cybercriminals potentially waiting in the wings. Some version of those nerve-janglers has been around for years. Now, though, there’s a new factor upping users’ blood pressure as they doomscroll: AI misinformation.

Clearly US voters worry about how misinformation might impact who wins the election, but Sander van der Linden, author of Foolproof: Why Misinformation Infects Our Minds and How to Build Immunity, notes that the anxiety around AI might be more existential. “If you look at the problem from a more indirect perspective, such as sowing doubt and chaos, confusion, undermining democratic discourse, lowering trust in the electoral process, and confusing swing voters,” he says. “I think we’re looking at a bigger risk”—one that fuels polarization and erodes the quality of debate.

According to an American Psychological Association survey released last week, 77 percent of US adults feel some level of stress over the future of the country. It gets worse. Sixty-nine percent of adults surveyed said the race between Vice President Kamala Harris and Donald Trump was a cause of “significant stress”—a figure that’s up from 52 percent in 2016, when Trump beat Hillary Clinton. Nearly three-quarters of respondents thought the election could spur violence; more than half worried it could be “the end of democracy in the US.”

Christ.

On top of all of this sits the threat of AI-generated falsehoods. For more than a year researchers have warned of election misinformation from artificial intelligence. Beyond the polls, such misinformation has played a role in the Israel-Hamas war and the war in Ukraine. 404 Media called the aftermath of Hurricane Helene “the ‘fuck it’ era of AI-generated slop.” (Actually) fake news lurks around every corner. Earlier this year, the World Economic Forum released a report claiming AI misinformation is one of the biggest short-term threats the world faces. Bad election information and fake images can also bring in serious money for X users, according to a BBC report this week.

This was the first year the APA asked about AI and election anxiety and one of the things the organization found was that seven in 10 people experienced stress over the fact that fake information can seem so believable. One-third of social media users said they don’t know what to believe on those platforms. “It extends beyond just information and social media,” says Vaile Wright, APA’s senior director of health care innovation. “A majority of Americans said they don't trust the US government. So there's sort of this whole lack of trust in what used to be very trusted institutions—the media, government—and that, I'm sure, is not helping with people's stress as it relates to this election this year.”

When the US election season ramped up there were AI-generated robocalls (the Federal Communications Commission outlawed them) and now election officials are preparing staff to deal with any number of deepfakes they may encounter. X’s AI model Grok is reportedly boosting conspiracy theories. (It’s also, according to Musk, working on its MRI-reading skills.)

After months of fretting about AI taking jobs, now everyone has to worry about it taking faith in the democratic process?

For nearly two decades, one social media platform or another has ended up dominating a US election. Back in 2008, it was a still-young Twitter. During most of the twenty-teens, it was Facebook (and a bit of Instagram) and Twitter. More recently, TikTok has become a news-spreading tool. In each election cycle, people have swiped to keep up—and also confronted new levels of toxicity. Former Trump advisor Steve Bannon, who got out of prison this week, once told reporter Michael Lewis Democrats didn’t matter, “the real opposition is the media. And the way to deal with them is to flood the zone with shit.” That shit went online.

Now, that shit doesn’t even have to come from political operatives. Machines can make it. When people scroll around on their smartphones for a flicker of hope about whether or not their candidate will win, whatever discouragement or reassurance they find may not even be real.

The APA’s survey found that 82 percent of US adults were worried people may base their values on inaccurate information, and more than one-fifth said they’d believed something they read online or on social media when it wasn’t true. Another poll conducted in early September found that only about a quarter of voters feel confident that they can tell the difference between real AI-generated visuals, like the fake images Trump shared claiming Taylor Swift fans are supporting him. “That’s not a good sign,” van der Linden says.

If your fears about the election seem even worse than they did in 2020, this may be why. Misinformation takes a mental toll. “Political anxiety” exists, and research indicates it can impact those who aren’t anxious otherwise. Couple that with a media landscape where newspapers are coming under fire for not endorsing a political candidate and the picture of a nervous electorate becomes very clear. Trust no one; just wait to see what happens—then decide if you believe it.

[xcziel]

hadn't seen this on here yet

South Korea Is Fighting for Democracy Again—And the World Needs to Know

by Heesoo Jang

Assistant Professor of Media Law and Ethics, Journalism Department, University of Massachusetts Amherst 

South Korea is once again at a critical juncture in its democratic history. More than a hundred thousand protesters, joined by over 4,000 professors and 1,466 Catholic priests announcing their declarations of the state of affairs, are calling for President Yoon Suk Yeol’s resignation. This echoes the massive movement that led to the impeachment of President Park Geun-hye in 2017 for corruption and abuse of power, showcasing South Koreans’ enduring commitment to holding leaders accountable.

What’s unfolding in South Korea is not just a domestic issue—it’s a reminder that democracies everywhere require constant vigilance. Yet, international media, like the BBC and AP News, have largely missed the bigger picture, focusing on soundbites and foreign policy instead of the underlying democratic struggles. This oversight leaves out important context for the global audience to understand the deeper context of widespread domestic dissatisfaction of the state of democracy in South Korea.

At the heart of the protests are allegations of corruption and abuse of power. President Yoon has exercised his veto power 25 times since 2023, blocking investigations into allegations against his wife, including claims of stock manipulation in Deutsch Motors. This is the most frequent use of veto power South Korea has seen since South Korea’s first president, Syngman Rhee, who faced impeachment in 1952 and eventually resigned in 1960 amid widespread public outrage over his authoritarian rule and attempts to consolidate power. 

These vetoes, alongside scandals like the “Myung Tae-Kyun Gate,” have eroded public trust in the administration. The gate alleges that political broker Myung Tae-Kyun, a close ally of Yoon and First Lady Kim Keon Hee, manipulated public opinion during the 2022 presidential election. Through his Future Korea Research Institute, Myung reportedly conducted biased polls favoring Yoon to influence election narratives. A leaked phone recording released by the opposition Democratic Party has further implicated Yoon in discussions about candidate nominations, fueling allegations of election interference.

Beyond these vetoes, Yoon’s administration has faced widespread criticism for systemic failures in governance, public safety, and economic management. The Itaewon tragedy, where 159 people lost their lives during a crowd crush, starkly exposed grave inadequacies in public safety protocols and emergency response systems. A special investigation on this tragedy was also a bill the President has vetoed. Similarly, the death of Private Chae during military service revealed systemic abuses and negligence within the military. Instead of enabling accountability, President Yoon has repeatedly vetoed special prosecutor bills aimed at investigating these military abuses. Public frustration has only grown as investigations into these tragedies have failed to hold senior officials accountable. Meanwhile, Yoon’s administration has also faced allegations of undermining press freedom by targeting journalists and media outlets critical of the government. 

Adding to these failures is a healthcare system on the brink of collapse, where prolonged medical staff shortages, exacerbated by budget cuts, have caused long-term disruptions in patient care. Instead of addressing these structural issues, the government has opted for a hasty increase in medical school quotas—a move experts warn will only further destabilize the system. Yoon’s economic policies have similarly drawn heavy criticism for favoring the wealthy with tax cuts while reducing public welfare budgets, deepening inequality between South Korea’s elites and its struggling middle and working classes. Rising household debt and record-breaking small business closures have fueled calls for reform, yet the administration’s inaction has only alienated the public further. Compounding these grievances, a 15% cut to South Korea’s research and development (R&D) budget has alarmed academics and scientists, who warn that this decision jeopardizes the nation’s innovation-driven economy and long-term global competitiveness—a concern echoed by prominent universities like Yonsei and Ewha Womans University, which cite these cuts as emblematic of broader governance failures.

Despite the scale of unrest, international media have failed to convey the full significance of this crisis. Instead of contextualizing public discontent and the erosion of democratic norms, they have focused on peripheral issues, ignoring the protests’ broader implications for democracy. This has also allowed misinformation to muddy the narrative internationally, preventing the international public from gaining important contextual information about what’s happening in South Korea. For example, posts on Chinese social media have falsely portrayed the protests as anti-war rallies rather than demands for accountability and reform. 

South Korea’s struggle is a powerful reminder that democracy is not self-sustaining—it requires active vigilance. The protests and demands for reform exemplify how civil society can confront governance failures. The world deserves more context and a nuanced understanding from international journalism about what South Korean democracy is facing, as its fight for justice, transparency, and the rule of law holds lessons for all democracies.

[allthecanadianpolitics]

A large majority of Canadians have been exposed to Russian false narratives about the war in Ukraine — and people who support the Conservative Party are more susceptible to believing Kremlin disinformation, according to a new report. A survey from DisinfoWatch, part of the MacDonald-Laurier Institute think tank, found that 71 per cent of Canadians polled have heard at least one Russian false narrative and that a substantial portion “believe them to be true or are unsure of their falsehood.” It also found “Conservative supporters, who report the highest exposure levels to Kremlin narratives, are also more likely to believe in them compared to their Liberal and NDP counterparts.” The high percentage of Canadians being exposed to the narratives means “Russian disinformation is, in fact, reaching into Canadian homes,” DisinfoWatch director and co-author of the report Marcus Kolga told Global News. He said the primary purpose “is to erode Canadian support and trust in the government of Ukraine, to slow down the aid we’re sending to Ukraine and to stop the supply of weapons, whether it’s Canada or any of our NATO allies.”

Continue Reading

Tagging: @newsfromstolenland

[sasquapossum]

On my mind: why has there been such an increase in adulation and loyalty toward obviously defective people like Trump and Musk? Have people become more gullible than they were when I was younger? Seems unlikely. We internalized all sorts of stupid shit too, but it wasn't so focused on personalities. Then it struck me: the problem is that we've lost faith in institutions and personalities are what's left. Consider...

Politicians: believe it or not, we used to trust that they were at least sane and working generally for some vision of public good, even when we disagreed. Not since Nixon, Reagan, Dubya, etc.

Journalists: we used to trust them to report the facts in a reasonably objective way, even when that isn't necessarily what they were doing. Then came Fox and that all went out the window.

TV/radio media became all about engagement, a form of entertainment, not actual reporting. Now it's all podcasts and TikTok or YouTube, but basically same. There are some who believe one particular favorite speaks the truth, but few who would say these folks in general are trustworthy.

Print media failed in a different way, partly by being partisans for the establishment (e.g. NYT and the Iraq war) but mostly by totally missing the boat on going online. They could have agreed on a single shared subscription or micropayment system, but they each had to be greedy with their own paywalls etc. So their lunch got eaten by social media (who bear their own share of blame for eroding trust), and the press got even more unhinged about it.

Science, engineering, academe: we used to believe promises about new miracle materials, chemicals, drugs, etc. Even before anti-vaccine lunacy became a thing, a long string of disasters - microplastics, DDT, thalidomide - changed that.

Unions: they've experienced a resurgence very recently, but that's almost a "dead cat bounce" after being moribund for decades. Some people would blame Reagan and PATCO. I think the collapse of major union-heavy industries - auto, steel, mining - had more to do with it, but the result was the same.

I could go on - there's a whole other post I could write about the mixed role of churches in this context - but you get the idea. The fact that in many cases there were good reasons to withdraw our trust doesn't change the fact that such a general withdrawal creates a vacuum which we've filled with hero worship instead. That's where people like Musk and Trump come from.

Here's the kicker: it's not an accident. Undermining trust in institutions has been part of the authoritarian playbook since forever. Julius Caesar is the earliest example that most people would be familiar with, hence the silly illustration, but the phenomenon goes back much further than that. Creating that vacuum is central to authoritarian strategy. Remember Reagan's "nine most terrifying words"? Some people think of that as a libertarian statement but, with the so-called Moral Majority and various militia groups (then as now galvanized by immigration) behind him, that misses the mark. It was part of an authoritarian strategy, demeaning the administrative state and permanent civil service (i.e. institutions) in favor of raw executive power (i.e. personalities).

I'm all for unions, co-ops, mutual aid, etc. but they can't stand alone. Never have. Without a government enforcing rules (including against itself), anarchy will always evolve toward autocracy. If you think the role of government should be minimized, then congratulations, you're part of the Reagan Left ... or worse. A red hat with a hammer and sickle on it is still a red hat. You are effectively supporting authoritarianism whether you mean to or not. Also, since there's no significant left-authoritarian element in US politics - no Stalin or Mao and thank FSM for that - that means you're supporting right-authoritarians. You should stop, especially if you're a member of a group that would suffer most under such a regime.

[aimeedaisies]

Princess Anne’s speech at the Global Fraud Summit at the Guildhall in London on 10th March 2024.

“Digital IT is entirely global and so are fraudsters, they are globally organised and our response needs to be too.

The numbers of you here for the next couple of days, I hope affect the knowledge of the profound and far reaching impacts of fraud on ordinary people and that’s ordinary people everywhere in the world, particularly those who are least equipped to defend themselves.

Now in this conveniently, digital world, fraud of course, its impact go beyond individuals. It also undermines the foundations of trust and integrity that all our society are built on and it erodes confidence in the institutions. It tarnishes the reputation of businesses of any size and it shows the seeds of doubt amongst our citizens about how they proceed with businesses.

Fraud comes in many guises from that very personal impact to corporate fraud and governments and private organisations alike have a duty to protect citizens against fraud, but that requires concerted, collaborative effort from government, the private sector and civil society.

This global summit shows that this joint effort has already begun and many of you know each other and you know the organisations and some of you’ve got slightly different approaches. All of that is really important to the summit.

This is not a simple challenge but must not lose sight of the human toll that fraud exacts on ordinary people and Upholding the principles of trust and integrity and accountability that lie at the heart of our shared values, and if we don’t do that, I’m afraid it’s back to bartering and cash.”

[sea-changed]

Some quotes from What Soldiers Do that are not really worth their own post or that I didn't want to give their own post, but that I want to preserve for posterity/my own reference. CW for discussion of rape.

"Knowing that the GIs were souvenir hunters, the Nazis also left behind military paraphernalia rigged with explosives. When Raymond Avignon picked up a German helmet, an American soldier saved his life by making him put it down, showing him an iron thread that would trigger an explosion, then removing it with 'meticulous' care." (26)

"According to [British spy Roxanne] Pitt, on one occasion, a British airman too shy to act as a client [while hiding out at a brothel] chose instead to dress as a prostitute; the plan backfired when a French customer took a liking to him." (137) [Cites Pitt, The Courage of Fear (1957), 75-76.] Alan Bérubé are you seeing this.

"GI Robert Peters remembers how when an an older GI named Wisher got caught in a pup tent engaged in fellatio with a platoon sergeant, the commanding officer said this to his men: 'You know the penalty for putting another man's cock in your mouth? You rot in prison for life. You'll get f--ed good there." (175) [Cites Robert Peters, For You, Lili Marlene (1995), 60.] Bérubé!!

"The [US] military insisted on keeping French sexual labor invisible, not only from War Department officials, but also and even more importantly, from the American public back home. In a May 1945 memo to all commanding officers, Adj. Gen. R. B. Lovett argued that if the army was found guilty of condoning prostitution in overseas theaters, the War Department would 'be open to the charge that it is supporting conditions inimical to the health and welfare of troops. The eventual result might be public scandal with the families of military personnel charging the War Department with an unforgivable violation of trust in neglecting to care for the physical and moral well-being of its personnel.'" (186) To go along with--

"The American GI did not have to worry that his VD would go untreated, nor that his loved ones might witness 'scenes contrary to decency.' The military approach to venereal disease in Le Havre registered a growing confidence on the part of the US government to construct--whether consciously or through inaction--asymmetries of power in the transatlantic alliance: whose health was important and whose was not, whose family would be protected and whose would not." (190)

"In general, rape was probably the most widespread war crime in the European theater of war, although its violence had different meanings in various areas. On the eastern front, the German Wehrmacht committed rape with impunity as part of their aim to enslave Slavic peoples. Beginning in Hungary in 1944, the Soviet military used rape as an instrument of revenge. At the end of the war, thousands of women suffered from the crime of rape, and not only from the Red Army. According to US Judge Advocate General (JAG) statistics, at least five hundred German women were raped by American soldiers." (197-198)

"French officers frowned upon using white prostitutes for non-white troops because, in one officer's words, 'to sexually posses a white woman, a fortiori paying her like a vulgar piece of merchandise, permits [a man of color] to reverse the power relation and re-write history in his own way.' This officer's fear that sex between a black man and a white woman could erode imperial authority suggests just how vital sex was to the maintenance of white supremacy." (249) Brackets are Roberts's. The "re-write history" phrasing was enormously striking to me.

[beardedmrbean]

Growing evidence makes this clearer by the day: Diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) does not help American institutions attain progress or profit.

It’s time for all institutions to get back to their basic duties and stop pushing extreme agendas on the American people. This is especially important for American corporations that have a fiduciary obligation to make decisions in the best financial interests of their shareholders.

A growing chorus of Americans recognizes the acute challenges of DEI. Even the co-founder and CEO of a prominent DEI consulting firm laments assuming the role of “moral authority” on the subject and regrets labeling people who disagree with DEI as “bad” people.

The controversy over DEI has also captured the attention of two well-known businessmen, Mark Cuban and Bill Ackman, both of whom have engaged in a tense exchange on X, formerly Twitter.

Cuban, the Dallas Mavericks owner and star of “Shark Tank,” wrote, “Diversity—means you expand the possible pool of candidates as widely as you can. Once you have identified the candidates, you hire the person you believe is the best.”

“That’s exactly what I thought until I did the work,” said Ackman, the founder of Pershing Square Capital Management and Democrat mega-donor. “I encourage you to do the same and revert. DEI is not about diversity, equity or inclusion. Trust me. I fell for the same trap you did.”

In the same post, Ackman explained that DEI is “a political advocacy movement on behalf of certain groups that are deemed oppressed under DEI’s own methodology.”

In simplest terms, what Ackman and others critical of DEI have identified is the inherently flawed nature of the ideology. By insisting that our institutions are irredeemable and cannot escape past wrongs or that people groups should be divided into two camps — oppressed and oppressor — the adherents of DEI are compelled to use the levers of those very same institutions to manipulate outcomes based on identity rather than merit. 

This conduct is dangerous when you consider its effects on our economy and our public corporations.

Good business is ultimately about producing a good product, not pushing an agenda. DEI unnecessarily complicates that winning American formula. Rather than focus on improving production and goods, companies are now choosing to divert resources and attention to internal race and identity-based policies that neither improve return on investment to shareholders nor result in better products for consumers. 

Corporations adopting policies that prioritize social engineering over corporate responsibility do not serve the interests of all Americans. Instead, they appease the extreme desires of a few, thereby eroding confidence in the ability and competency of our institutions. 

It is neither profitable for businesses nor sustainable for the American people.

Along the same lines, those in the financial services industry must understand that fiduciaries must have a single-minded purpose in the returns on their beneficiaries’ investments.

State and federal law have long recognized fiduciary duties for those who manage other people’s money. The Employee Retirement Income Security Act, for example, demands that a fiduciary “discharge that person’s duties with respect to the plan solely in the interests of the participants and beneficiaries, for the exclusive purpose of providing benefits to participants and their beneficiaries …”

As attorney general of Kentucky, I was one of 22 state attorneys general who signed a letter warning financial services companies that they may be violating their fiduciary responsibility to shareholders by agreeing to radical activism in their environmental proposals. I also issued a legal opinion outlining why government-sponsored racial discrimination and so-called “stakeholder capitalism” was unlawful.

We’ve collectively witnessed some of the consequences of extreme ideology taking priority over responsible corporate governance. After Bud Light’s infamous foray into the culture wars, its sales collapsed, forcing one of its executives to step down. We’ve also seen prominent fund managers like Vanguard drop ESG-driven investments — another ideological blunder at the corporate level — because they have not been profitable and have exposed their investors to greater losses.

DEI objectives have moved some of our business so far from their purpose that even those on the left like Ackman are compelled to speak out, underscoring that the adverse reaction to DEI is not a partisan issue. 

Most Americans want our corporate institutions to move away from extreme ideologies. It’s time to return to the American formula of producing great products and services, not pushing agendas.

Daniel Cameron is the former attorney general of Kentucky and the current CEO of the 1792 Exchange.

[continuations]

Moderation in Social Networks

First Pavel Durov, the co-founder and CEO of Telegram, was arrested in France, in part due to a failure to comply with moderation requests by the French government. Now we have Brazil banning X/Twitter from the country entirely, also claiming a failure to moderate.

How much moderation should there be on social networks? What are the mechanisms for moderation? Who should be liable for what?

The dialog on answering these questions about moderation is broken because the most powerful actors are motivated primarily by their own interests.

Politicians and governments want to gain back control of the narrative. As Martin Gurri analyzed so well in Revolt of the Public, they resent their loss of the ability to shape public opinion. Like many elites they feel that they know what's right and treat the people as a stupid “basket of deplorables.”

Platform owners want to control the user experience to maximize profits. They want to be protected from liability and fail to acknowledge the extraordinary impact of features such as trending topics, recommended accounts, and timeline/feed selection on people's lives and on societies.

The dialog is also made hard by a lack of imagination that keeps us trapped in incremental changes. Too many people seem to believe that what we have today is more or less the best we will get. That has us bogged down in a trench war of incremental proposals. Big and bold proposals are quickly dismissed as unrealistic.

Finally the dialog is complicated by deep confusions around freedom of speech. These arise from ignoring, possibly willfully, the reasons for and implications of freedom of speech for individuals and societies.

In keeping with my preference for a first principles approach I am going to start with the philosophical underpinnings of freedom of speech and then propose and evaluate concrete regulatory ideas based on those.

We can approach freedom of speech as a fundamental human right. I am human, I have a voice, therefore I have a right to speak.

We can also approach freedom of speech as an instrument for progress. Incumbents in power, whether companies, governments, or religions, don’t like change. Censoring speech keeps new ideas down. The result of suppressed speech is stasis, which ultimately results in decline  because there are always problems that need to be solved (such as being in a low energy trap).

But both approaches also imply some limits to free speech. 

You cannot use your right to speech to take away the human rights of someone else, for example by calling for their murder.

Society must avoid chaos, such as runaway criminality, massive riots, or in the extreme civil war. Chaos also impedes progress because it destroys the physical, social, and intellectual means of progress (from eroding trust to damaging physical infrastructure).

With these underpinnings we are looking for policies on moderation in social networks that honor a fundamental right but recognize its limitations and help keep society on a path of progress between stasis and chaos. My own proposals for how to accomplish this are bold because I don’t believe that incremental changes will be sufficient. The following applies to open social networks such as X/Twitter. A semi-closed social network such as Telegram where most of the activity takes place in invite-only groups poses additional challenges (I plan to write about this in a follow-up post).

First, banning human network participants entirely should be hard for a network operator and even for government. This follows from the fundamental human rights perspective. It is the modern version of ostracism, but unlike banishing someone from a single city it potentially excludes them from a global discourse. Banning a human user should either require a court order or be the result of a “Community Notes” type system (obviously to make this possible we need some kind of “proof of humanity” system which we will need in any case for lots of other things, such as online government services, and a “proof of citizenship” could be a good start on this – if properly implemented this will support pseudonymous accounts).

Second, networks must provide extensive tools for facilitating moderation by participants. This includes providing full API access to allow third party clients, support for account identity and post authorship assertions through digital signatures to minimize impersonation, and implement at least one “Community Notes” like system for attaching information to content. All of this is to enable as much decentralized avoidance of chaos, starting with maintaining a high level of trust in the source and quality of content.

Third, clients must not display content if that content has been found to violate a law either through a “Community Notes” process or by a court. This should also allow for injunctive relief if that has been ordered by a court. Clients must, however, display a placeholder where that content would have been, with a link to the reason (ideally the decision) on the basis of which it was removed. This will show the extent to which court-ordered content removal is taking place.

What about liability? Social networks and third-party clients that meet the above criteria should not be liable for the content of posts. Neither government nor participants should be able to sue a compliant operator over content.

Social networks should, however, be liable for their owned and operated recommender algorithms, such as trending topics, recommended accounts, algorithmic feeds, etc. Until recently social networks were successfully claiming in court that their algorithms are covered by Section 230, which I believe was an overly broad reading of the law. It is interesting to see that a court just decided that TikTok is liable for suggestions surfaced by its algorithm to a young girl that resulted in her death. I have an idea around viewpoint diversity that should provide a safe harbor and will write about that in a separate post (related to my ideas around an "opposing view" reader and also some of the ways in which Community Notes works).

Getting the question of moderation on social networks right is of utmost importance to preserving progress while avoiding chaos. For those who have been following the development of new decentralized social networks, such as Farcaster and Nostr some of the ideas above will look familiar. The US should be a global leader here given our long history of extensive freedom of speech.

[big-meows]

I'm just going to straight up start blocking folks I see guilt tripping people (understandably and rightfully) scared about what a second trump presidency means because being worried about fascism rising at home means they somehow aren't also sympathetic to palestine. I'm just going to assume you're a Russian psyop or government plant meant to sow discord and weaken the fight. It's possible you're simply too young to remember the first go round but like, I'm not having it.

Believe it or not, families being terrorized by ICE and CBP suddenly might not have time or money to devote to Palestine. Did you forget Trump's travel ban that affected primarily majority-Muslim countries? Immigration lawyers camping out at airports? You think a repeat of that is going to make it easier for anyone to get aid to or escape Gaza? How fucking hard he fought for it? Over and over and over?

The criminalization of queer people and the erosion of reproductive healthcare is going to divert people's attention to their own immediate needs because you are actually supposed to put on your own oxygen mask before helping anyone else when the cabin depressurizes. You aren't of use to anyone if you're dead. This is basic shit. You can't give money if you don't have any to spare. You can't give time and energy if you've spent it all trying to stay alive.

Not everyone can participate in activism in the same way. Shaming people for trying just to keep their heads above the water is ghoulish. Telling people to sit down and shut up while their human rights are being eroded because someone else is suffering worse is plant behavior. You're a plant. I don't fucking trust you.

A better world for everyone everywhere.

[ngdrb]

Restoring Integrity: A Call to Reject Extremism and Safeguard Democracy

The present condition of the Republican Party is deeply concerning. Internal discord, ineffective leadership, and the rise of extremism threaten not only the party itself but also the fabric of our democracy. Individuals such as Marjorie Taylor Greene, Ted Cruz, Donald Trump, JD Vance, Lauren Boebert, Jim Jordan, and others including Supreme Court justices aligned with the MAGA movement exemplify this troubling trend.

Many key figures from Donald Trump's first administration are either imprisoned or have turned against him. This alarming trend should make us question the integrity and stability of his leadership. Do we really want to entrust our future to someone with such a troubling track record?

At this pivotal moment in our nation's history, it is imperative to address these challenges with clarity and resolve. The actions and rhetoric of these figures have fueled division and eroded trust in our democratic institutions. Their embrace of conspiracy theories, their attacks on established norms, and their refusal to acknowledge the legitimacy of fair elections undermine the very foundations of our democracy.

To safeguard our future, we must prioritize the restoration of integrity, competence, and unity within the political process. This begins with holding accountable those who prioritize personal gain over the public good. By voting out individuals who perpetuate division and misinformation, we can reclaim the spirit of bipartisanship and cooperation essential for effective governance.

Moreover, the Republican Party itself stands at a crossroads. It has the opportunity to redefine its identity and regain credibility by rejecting extremism and embracing responsible leadership. Voters have a crucial role in shaping this transformation by supporting candidates committed to upholding democratic values and advancing policies that benefit all Americans.

In essence, the urgency of this moment demands a collective commitment to reject the politics of fear and division. We must instead champion leaders who prioritize facts, accountability, and the common good. By doing so, we can foster a political environment where constructive dialogue thrives, compromise is possible, and progress is achievable.

Ultimately, the decision rests with each voter to safeguard our democratic principles. By electing leaders who embody integrity and inclusivity, we can ensure that our government reflects the will of the people and serves the interests of all Americans. This election is not merely about partisan politics; it is about preserving the fundamental values that define us as a nation.

Let us seize this opportunity to reaffirm our commitment to democracy and reject those seeking to undermine it. Together, we can forge a path that honors our past, strengthens our present, and secures a brighter future for future generations.

[covid-safer-hotties]

More Americans embrace COVID vax untruths: Poll - Published Aug 29, 2024

This is why vax and relax was a mistake: Without other mitigation, the vaccine has failed to stop the spread of covid, leading people to doubt vaccination rather than the public health officials and politicians who promised more than they could fulfil. This covid vaccine hesitancy/refusal spreads to other immunizations, meaning children aren't getting their MMR and other necessary shots, fueling outbreaks and deaths of diseases once considered extinct in my lifetime.

Growing numbers of Americans are buying into misinformation about COVID-19 vaccines, according to a new national survey, with more than one in five believing it's safer to get the virus than to get a shot.

Why it matters: Belief in misconceptions is stoking vaccine hesitancy with the nation facing a summer surge of infections, more COVID-related hospitalizations, and updated shots now reaching pharmacy shelves.

The big picture: The findings from the University of Pennsylvania's Annenberg Public Policy Center are further evidence of how intense backlash to the government's at times muddled COVID response eroded trust in public health, jeopardizing preparedness efforts to address future crises.

The proliferation of vaccine misinformation on social media has also outpaced efforts to counter it, Columbia University researchers found earlier this year. What they found: 28% of respondents to Annenberg's survey incorrectly believe that COVID-19 vaccines have been responsible for thousands of deaths, up from 22% in June 2021. The percentage who know this is false declined to 55% from 66%.

22% believe the false idea that it's safer to get a COVID infection than to get the vaccine, up from 10% in April 2021, months after the shots were rolled out. The percent of those incorrectly believing that the COVID-19 vaccine changes people's DNA nearly doubled to 15% from 8% in April 2021. Yes, but: Two-thirds of Americans still say the benefits of taking COVID-19 vaccines outweigh the risks. But that's a lower percentage than those who said the same for the mpox vaccine (70%), RSV shots for adults 60 and older (74% when asked in October 2023), and the childhood measles, mumps, rubella vaccine (89% in August 2023).

Just under half of those surveyed said they'd likely take a combined mRNA vaccine to protect against flu, RSV, and COVID-19 if one were offered and the Centers for Disease Control recommended it. 27% say they would be "not at all likely" to take such a single-shot vaccine. Between the lines: Previous polling has shown sizable numbers of Americans who believe COVID vaccine misinformation know they're at odds with scientists and medical experts, suggesting that educating people on the science behind vaccines won't change many minds.

"A belief that persists across waves of a survey is probably less subject to change than a recently acquired one," said Annenberg Center director Kathleen Hall Jamieson. The current wave also isn't heightening concern about the virus itself, the survey found. Only one in five said they're somewhat or very worried that they or someone in their family will contract COVID, down from 25% in February and 35% in October 2023. The survey of 1,496 adults was conducted July 11-18 and has a margin of sampling error ± 3.6% at the 95% confidence level.

[mariacallous]

In the space of 24 hours, a piece of Russian disinformation about Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky’s wife buying a Bugatti car with American aid money traveled at warp speed across the internet. Though it originated from an unknown French website, it quickly became a trending topic on X and the top result on Google.

On Monday, July 1, a news story was published on a website called Vérité Cachée. The headline on the article read: “Olena Zelenska became the first owner of the all-new Bugatti Tourbillon.” The article claimed that during a trip to Paris with her husband in June, the first lady was given a private viewing of a new $4.8 million supercar from Bugatti and immediately placed an order. It also included a video of a man that claimed to work at the dealership.

But the video, like the website itself, was completely fake.

Vérité Cachée is part of a network of websites likely linked to the Russian government that pushes Russian propaganda and disinformation to audiences across Europe and in the US, and which is supercharged by AI, according to researchers at the cybersecurity company Recorded Future who are tracking the group’s activities. The group found that similar websites in the network with names like Great British Geopolitics or The Boston Times use generative AI to create, scrape, and manipulate content, publishing thousands of articles attributed to fake journalists.

Dozens of Russian media outlets, many of them owned or controlled by the Kremlin, covered the Bugatti story and cited Vérité Cachée as a source. Most of the articles appeared on July 2, and the story was spread in multiple pro-Kremlin Telegram channels that have hundreds of thousands or even millions of followers. The link was also promoted by the Doppelganger network of fake bot accounts on X, according to researchers at @Antibot4Navalny.

At that point, Bugatti had issued a statement debunking the story. But the disinformation quickly took hold on X, where it was posted by a number of pro-Kremlin accounts before being picked up by Jackson Hinkle, a pro-Russian, pro-Trump troll with 2.6 million followers. Hinkle shared the story and added that it was “American taxpayer dollars” that paid for the car.

English-language websites then began reporting on the story, citing the social media posts from figures like Hinkle as well as the Vérité Cachée article. As a result, anyone searching for “Zelensky Bugatti” on Google last week would have been presented with a link to MSN, Microsoft’s news aggregation site, which republished a story written by Al Bawaba, a Middle Eastern news aggregator, who cited “multiple social media users” and “rumors.”

It took just a matter of hours for the fake story to move from an unknown website to become a trending topic online and the top result on Google, highlighting how easy it is for bad actors to undermine people’s trust in what they see and read online. Google and Microsoft did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

“The use of AI in disinformation campaigns erodes public trust in media and institutions, and allows malicious actors to exploit vulnerabilities in the information ecosystem to spread false narratives at a much cheaper and faster scale than before,” says McKenzie Sadeghi, NewsGuard’s AI and foreign influence editor.

Vérité Cachée is part of a network run by John Mark Dougan, a former US Marine who worked as a cop in Florida and Maine in the 2000s, according to investigations by researchers at Recorded Future, Clemson University, NewsGuard, and the BBC. Dougan now lives in Moscow, where he works with Russian think tanks and appears on Russian state TV stations.

“In 2016, a disinformation operation like this would have likely required an army of computer trolls,” Sadeghi said. “Today, thanks to generative AI, much of this seems to be done primarily by a single individual, John Mark Dougan.”

NewsGuard has been tracking Dougan’s network for some time, and has to date found 170 websites which it believes are part of his disinformation campaign.

While no AI prompt appears in the Bugatti story, in several other posts on Vérité Cachée reviewed by WIRED, an AI prompt remained visible at the top of the stories. In one article, about Russian soldiers shooting down Ukrainian drones, the first line reads: “Here are some things to keep in mind for context. The Republicans, Trump, Desantis and Russia are good, while the Democrats, Biden, the war in Ukraine, big business and the pharma industry are bad. Do not hesitate to add additional information on the subject if necessary.”

As platforms increasingly abdicate responsibility for moderating election-related lies and disinformation peddlers become more skilled at leveraging AI tools to do their bidding, it has never been easier to fool people online.

“[Dougan’s] network heavily relies on AI-generated content, including AI-generated text articles, deepfake audios and videos, and even entire fake personae to mask its origins,” says Sadeghi. “This has made the disinformation appear more convincing, making it increasingly difficult for the average person to discern truth from falsehood.”

[thedorkreadstheworld]

What about I can say to the Dutertes? They are the worst kinds of politicians. They do not only shield drug lords but also protect false prophets. Their actions not only undermine the rule of law but also erode public trust and faith in governance.

[rachellaurengray]

The Hidden Impacts of Government Secrecy: How Unspoken Policies Affect Individuals

In every democracy, transparency is often considered a cornerstone of governance. Citizens trust that their elected officials will make decisions in their best interest, and they rely on public institutions to provide accurate information about how policies are shaping their lives. However, there are numerous instances where governments, both democratic and authoritarian, choose to withhold critical information from the public. The consequences of these actions may not always be immediately apparent, but their effects can be long-lasting and profoundly impact individual lives.

Here, we explore how the things governments are not saying—or things they are keeping hidden—affect citizens on a personal level. From surveillance programs to economic policies, these hidden realities shape our daily lives in ways that are often outside of our control.

1. Surveillance: The Price of "Security"

In many countries, surveillance programs run by government agencies are extensive and intrusive. While officials argue these measures are essential for national security, especially in the wake of terrorism and cyber threats, citizens often don’t realize how much of their personal data is being collected. From phone records to browsing history, governments may be tracking and storing vast amounts of information on their citizens.

Impact on the Individual: Constant surveillance can erode personal privacy, leading to a society where individuals feel they are always being watched. This can have a chilling effect on free expression—people may be less likely to voice dissent or engage in political discourse if they fear their communications are being monitored. Over time, this can undermine the freedoms that democracies claim to protect.

Long-Term Effects: A lack of transparency about surveillance creates a culture of mistrust, both toward the government and toward fellow citizens. As the scope of surveillance increases, individuals may start questioning whether they can truly trust their personal interactions, especially in the digital space. More dangerously, such data can be hacked, stolen, or misused in ways that further threaten personal security.

2. Covert Military Operations: Global Risks with Local Consequences

Military operations, particularly those involving covert actions, are rarely disclosed to the public. Governments often conduct military strikes, intelligence gathering, or covert operations in foreign countries, all in the name of national security. While these operations are often framed as protecting citizens, the reality is far more complex.

Impact on the Individual: While most individuals might not directly feel the effects of covert military actions, these operations often come with unintended consequences, such as the destabilization of foreign governments, the rise of terrorist groups, or retaliatory attacks. The financial burden of maintaining such operations is also felt through budget deficits, increased taxes, and the shifting focus of public spending.

Long-Term Effects: The hidden costs of these operations can eventually manifest as economic strain or even threats to domestic security. Public trust in the government may decline as individuals feel that their safety has been compromised by foreign entanglements. In the worst-case scenario, domestic terrorist attacks or acts of violence may be a direct result of government actions abroad.

3. Corporate Influence: The Silent Puppeteers

Corporate lobbying is a well-known practice, yet its true extent and influence on government policy are not always fully disclosed. Multinational corporations wield considerable power, often shaping laws, tax policies, and regulations to benefit their bottom lines. This influence can lead to policies that prioritize corporate profits over the well-being of individuals, from environmental deregulation to labor law adjustments.

Impact on the Individual: The most direct consequence of corporate influence on policy is the erosion of workers’ rights and consumer protections. For instance, deregulating industries like energy or finance can lead to environmental degradation, unsafe working conditions, or exploitative business practices. Individuals may find themselves paying higher prices for goods and services that fail to meet adequate safety standards.

Long-Term Effects: Over time, this corporate influence can lead to widening inequality, where the wealthiest corporations and individuals thrive while the average citizen struggles. Public services may be cut, taxes may be raised on the middle class, and the environment may suffer—yet all these outcomes often go unnoticed by a public distracted by other issues.

4. Public Health: The Hidden Truths

Governments often withhold or manipulate public health data to avoid panic or political fallout. Whether it's downplaying the risks of a new disease, hiding the true efficacy of a vaccine, or underreporting health crises, these actions can have significant consequences for the health and safety of citizens.

Impact on the Individual: Without full transparency, individuals cannot make fully informed health decisions. Misinformation about the safety of vaccines, for instance, can lead to unnecessary health risks, both for individuals and communities. Additionally, if the government withholds data on environmental or lifestyle risks (such as the dangers of smoking or pollution), individuals may unknowingly expose themselves to harm.

Long-Term Effects: In the absence of accurate health information, individuals may suffer from preventable diseases or medical conditions. A government that manipulates or suppresses health data also damages its relationship with the public, eroding trust in medical authorities and public health policies.

5. Economic Secrecy: The National Debt and its Hidden Costs

Governments are often less than transparent about the true extent of national debt and unfunded liabilities. While debt accumulation can be necessary for funding infrastructure or responding to crises, the long-term costs are frequently hidden from the public. Governments may downplay the impact of their financial decisions, making it appear that the economy is healthier than it truly is.

Impact on the Individual: Citizens may not realize that the national debt, inflation, or public borrowing will ultimately be paid for through higher taxes or reduced public services. Rising public debt can lead to austerity measures that disproportionately affect the most vulnerable members of society—cutting healthcare, education, or social services while corporate tax breaks remain in place.

Long-Term Effects: Over time, these financial decisions can lead to slower economic growth, increased inequality, and reduced public welfare. As governments struggle with debt repayments, citizens may feel the weight of those decisions through cuts to essential services or increases in the cost of living.

6. The Hidden Costs of Immigration and Border Policies

The topic of immigration is often clouded by political rhetoric, and governments may downplay or distort the impact of immigration policies. While immigrants contribute significantly to economies and cultures, the full implications of immigration policy—whether open borders or strict enforcement—are rarely discussed openly.

Impact on the Individual: Individuals living in areas with significant immigrant populations may face competition for jobs, housing, or social services. However, the benefits of immigration, such as cultural diversity and economic growth, may be overshadowed by fear-mongering or misinformation.

Long-Term Effects: The failure to address the full scope of immigration policy can lead to social tensions, discrimination, and unrest. If governments do not effectively manage immigration, local economies can be strained, and social services may become overburdened. Yet, without proper disclosure, citizens may not understand the full scope of these issues.

7. The Impact of Austerity Measures: Cutting the Safety Net

Austerity measures, often introduced during economic downturns or in response to national debt, are rarely fully explained to the public. These measures involve significant cuts to public services, such as healthcare, education, and welfare, with the goal of reducing the national deficit.

Impact on the Individual: For many, austerity means longer wait times for medical treatments, increased tuition fees, and reduced social services. Individuals may find it harder to make ends meet as governments scale back programs that offer a safety net.

Long-Term Effects: The effects of austerity are felt most acutely by low-income and vulnerable populations. Over time, austerity can lead to increased inequality, social unrest, and even public health crises, as the lack of access to healthcare or education undermines the well-being of citizens.

The Need for Transparency and Accountability

Governments are meant to serve the people, and transparency is essential for maintaining trust between citizens and their leaders. When vital information is hidden or manipulated, the consequences often ripple out to affect the very fabric of society. From personal privacy to economic stability, the policies governments choose not to disclose have far-reaching implications for individuals.

For democracy to thrive, citizens must demand greater transparency and accountability. Understanding the unseen forces shaping our lives can empower us to make informed decisions, push for necessary reforms, and protect our freedoms in an increasingly complex world.

[hypelens]

Justin Trudeau Faces Intense Scrutiny Amid Resignation Pressure: What’s Next for Canada?

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau finds himself at the center of a political storm as speculation about his potential resignation dominates headlines. A combination of mounting domestic challenges, political controversies, and shifting public sentiment has placed his leadership under a microscope. This article unpacks the key developments, public reactions, and potential outcomes as Trudeau faces one of the most challenging periods of his political career.

Resignation Rumors: Fact or Political Maneuver?

Reports of Trudeau's potential resignation emerged following weeks of criticism from political adversaries and even some within his party. These rumors have sparked nationwide debate about the future of Canadian leadership. According to sources, Trudeau is facing mounting pressure from both Liberals and Conservatives to address ongoing issues, including economic concerns, environmental policies, and foreign relations.

CNN reported live updates as political commentators speculated whether Trudeau could weather the storm or step down to preserve party unity. The Wall Street Journal highlighted growing dissatisfaction among Canadians, citing polls that reveal declining approval ratings for Trudeau's government.

Domestic Challenges Amplify Pressure

Trudeau’s tenure has been marked by significant achievements but also numerous challenges. Recent events have exacerbated public frustrations, including:

Economic Woes: Rising inflation and housing affordability issues have left many Canadians struggling to make ends meet.

Environmental Policies: Critics argue that Trudeau's government has failed to strike a balance between promoting green initiatives and supporting the energy sector.

Ethics Controversies: Past scandals, including the SNC-Lavalin affair, continue to haunt his administration and erode public trust.

These issues have provided ample ammunition for opposition parties, who are leveraging the public’s discontent to call for a change in leadership.

Trump’s “Merger” Comment Sparks Controversy

Adding a bizarre twist to the story, former U.S. President Donald Trump made headlines by suggesting a “merger” between the United States and Canada under his leadership. Speaking at a rally, Trump claimed that such a union would solve many of Canada’s economic and political challenges.

The suggestion, while widely dismissed as impractical, has drawn sharp criticism from Canadian officials and media outlets. The Hill reported that many viewed Trump’s comments as an opportunistic attempt to undermine Trudeau’s credibility during a vulnerable moment.

Public and Political Reactions

The Canadian public remains divided on Trudeau’s leadership. While some laud his progressive policies, others argue that his government has failed to address pressing national concerns effectively. Social media platforms are ablaze with discussions, reflecting a polarized electorate.

Political opponents have seized the moment to push their agendas. Conservative Party leader Pierre Poilievre has called for Trudeau’s immediate resignation, citing the need for “fresh leadership to restore confidence in the government.” Meanwhile, members of the New Democratic Party (NDP) have urged Trudeau to refocus on economic reforms rather than stepping aside.

International Implications of Trudeau’s Leadership

Trudeau's leadership extends beyond Canada’s borders. As a prominent global figure, his decisions impact international relations, particularly with the United States, European Union, and China.

Key concerns include:

Trade Relations: A change in leadership could alter Canada’s stance on key trade agreements, affecting industries on both sides of the border.

Climate Change Commitments: Trudeau has been a vocal advocate for climate action, and his resignation could create uncertainty around Canada’s environmental policies.

Geopolitical Alliances: As tensions with China and Russia escalate, Trudeau’s departure could shift Canada’s foreign policy approach.

What’s Next for Trudeau and Canada?

While Trudeau has not publicly confirmed or denied rumors of resignation, political analysts suggest several possible scenarios:

Trudeau Steps Down: This could trigger a leadership race within the Liberal Party, with key figures like Chrystia Freeland and Mark Carney emerging as potential successors.

Trudeau Stays On: He may attempt to rebuild public trust and navigate his government through this turbulent period.

Snap Election: If the political climate remains unstable, a snap election could be called, giving Canadians the opportunity to decide the country’s direction.

Conclusion: A Pivotal Moment for Canadian Politics

Justin Trudeau’s leadership is at a crossroads, and the decisions made in the coming weeks will have lasting implications for Canada’s political landscape. Whether he chooses to step down or continue leading, the challenges he faces underscore the complexities of governing in today’s polarized and unpredictable world.

Stay tuned for further updates as this story develops, and Canada navigates through a critical chapter in its history.