Anyone

cross-posted from: https://mander.xyz/post/34970724

Archived link

False and misleading claims about extreme weather events spread unchecked on social media are putting lives at risk, new research suggests

The Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) - which analyzed viral posts on the social media platform X, YouTube, Instagram, and Facebook - found that when a storm of false and misleading claims about extreme weather events, the platforms' algorithms amplify conspiracy theorists while sidelining life-saving information.

CCDH looked at the 300 most-liked posts on X, YouTube, and Meta about extreme weather events in the U.S. like Texas floods, Hurricane Helene and the LA wildfires.

Key points:

• False or misleading claims about extreme weather were viewed 221 million times across all platforms.
• Community Notes or fact checks are almost entirely absent on viral posts spreading false claims during major disasters.
• Social media companies are profiting from lies about extreme weather events.
• On X, 88% of misleading extreme weather posts were from verified accounts. The platform enables paid subscriptions for five of these accounts – which combined have 14 million followers
• On YouTube, 73% of posts were from verified accounts. YouTube displayed ads next to 29% of misleading extreme weather videos.
• On Facebook and Instagram, 64% of posts were from verified accounts. Meta is sharing ad revenue with three content creators pushing misleading claims, enabling them to share in Meta’s revenue from ads near their posts.
• ‘Superspreaders’ of false claims and conspiracies online, like Alex Jones [a U.S. far-right radio show host and prominent conspiracy theorist], get more views than official information during extreme weather events like the LA wildfires.
• Alex Jones’ false claims about the LA wildfires amassed 408 million views on X – more than the combined views of posts from 10 major news outlets and 10 key emergency agencies.

Archived link

False and misleading claims about extreme weather events spread unchecked on social media are putting lives at risk, new research suggests

The Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) - which analyzed viral posts on the social media platform X, YouTube, Instagram, and Facebook - found that when a storm of false and misleading claims about extreme weather events, the platforms' algorithms amplify conspiracy theorists while sidelining life-saving information.

CCDH looked at the 300 most-liked posts on X, YouTube, and Meta about extreme weather events in the U.S. like Texas floods, Hurricane Helene and the LA wildfires.

Key points:

• False or misleading claims about extreme weather were viewed 221 million times across all platforms.
• Community Notes or fact checks are almost entirely absent on viral posts spreading false claims during major disasters.
• Social media companies are profiting from lies about extreme weather events.
• On X, 88% of misleading extreme weather posts were from verified accounts. The platform enables paid subscriptions for five of these accounts – which combined have 14 million followers
• On YouTube, 73% of posts were from verified accounts. YouTube displayed ads next to 29% of misleading extreme weather videos.
• On Facebook and Instagram, 64% of posts were from verified accounts. Meta is sharing ad revenue with three content creators pushing misleading claims, enabling them to share in Meta’s revenue from ads near their posts.
• ‘Superspreaders’ of false claims and conspiracies online, like Alex Jones [a U.S. far-right radio show host and prominent conspiracy theorist], get more views than official information during extreme weather events like the LA wildfires.
• Alex Jones’ false claims about the LA wildfires amassed 408 million views on X – more than the combined views of posts from 10 major news outlets and 10 key emergency agencies.

cross-posted from: https://mander.xyz/post/34703712

This cautious approach is necessary to protect sensitive information and prevent foreign influence in research, Universities explained [according to Danish broadcaster DR].

Aarhus University is the one for which the Danish broadcaster managed to get the most information. Here, in 2025 alone, 24 research applications have been rejected for security reasons. According to DR’s story, the university now automatically subjects candidates from China, Russia, and Iran to rigorous background checks.

Whenever Aarhus University receives an application from one of these countries, it triggers a thorough investigation into the candidate’s background. The university examines their previous research collaborators, institutions, and research fields to assess any risk of exposure to foreign pressure or espionage attempts. The goal is to prevent sensitive information from falling into the wrong hands.

Brian Vinter, pro-dean of the technical faculty at Aarhus University, explained to DR that these rejections are not due to poor qualifications but because the candidates are deemed potential security risks. “They are rejected based on the possibility they could be pressured by their home countries to leak information,” he said.

A very cautious approach, that’s for sure, which may exclude skilled applicants — profiles the country is otherwise extremely interested in — but on the other hand, it seems necessary to protect Denmark’s interests and the university’s employees from foreign coercion.

...

Aarhus University has hired five specialists fluent in Russian, Chinese, and Persian solely to evaluate applicants. According to the DR story, the university plans to expand security measures to include physical protection of facilities, new travel policies, and issuing specially secured devices to staff traveling to risk countries.

...

cross-posted from: https://mander.xyz/post/34703712

This cautious approach is necessary to protect sensitive information and prevent foreign influence in research, Universities explained [according to Danish broadcaster DR].

Aarhus University is the one for which the Danish broadcaster managed to get the most information. Here, in 2025 alone, 24 research applications have been rejected for security reasons. According to DR’s story, the university now automatically subjects candidates from China, Russia, and Iran to rigorous background checks.

Whenever Aarhus University receives an application from one of these countries, it triggers a thorough investigation into the candidate’s background. The university examines their previous research collaborators, institutions, and research fields to assess any risk of exposure to foreign pressure or espionage attempts. The goal is to prevent sensitive information from falling into the wrong hands.

Brian Vinter, pro-dean of the technical faculty at Aarhus University, explained to DR that these rejections are not due to poor qualifications but because the candidates are deemed potential security risks. “They are rejected based on the possibility they could be pressured by their home countries to leak information,” he said.

A very cautious approach, that’s for sure, which may exclude skilled applicants — profiles the country is otherwise extremely interested in — but on the other hand, it seems necessary to protect Denmark’s interests and the university’s employees from foreign coercion.

...

Aarhus University has hired five specialists fluent in Russian, Chinese, and Persian solely to evaluate applicants. According to the DR story, the university plans to expand security measures to include physical protection of facilities, new travel policies, and issuing specially secured devices to staff traveling to risk countries.

...

This cautious approach is necessary to protect sensitive information and prevent foreign influence in research, Universities explained [according to Danish broadcaster DR].

Aarhus University is the one for which the Danish broadcaster managed to get the most information. Here, in 2025 alone, 24 research applications have been rejected for security reasons. According to DR’s story, the university now automatically subjects candidates from China, Russia, and Iran to rigorous background checks.

Whenever Aarhus University receives an application from one of these countries, it triggers a thorough investigation into the candidate’s background. The university examines their previous research collaborators, institutions, and research fields to assess any risk of exposure to foreign pressure or espionage attempts. The goal is to prevent sensitive information from falling into the wrong hands.

Brian Vinter, pro-dean of the technical faculty at Aarhus University, explained to DR that these rejections are not due to poor qualifications but because the candidates are deemed potential security risks. “They are rejected based on the possibility they could be pressured by their home countries to leak information,” he said.

A very cautious approach, that’s for sure, which may exclude skilled applicants — profiles the country is otherwise extremely interested in — but on the other hand, it seems necessary to protect Denmark’s interests and the university’s employees from foreign coercion.

...

Aarhus University has hired five specialists fluent in Russian, Chinese, and Persian solely to evaluate applicants. According to the DR story, the university plans to expand security measures to include physical protection of facilities, new travel policies, and issuing specially secured devices to staff traveling to risk countries.

...

cross-posted from: https://mander.xyz/post/32658309

In November 2021, in the city of Chandler, Arizona, Chris Pelkey was shot and killed by Gabriel Horcasitas in a road rage altercation.

Horcasitas was tried and convicted of reckless manslaughter.

When it was time for Horcasitas to be sentenced by a judge, Pelkey’s family knew they wanted to make a statement – known as a “victim impact statement” – explaining to the judge who Pelkey had been when he was alive.

They found they couldn’t get the words right.

The solution for them turned out to be having Pelkey speak for himself by creating an AI-generated avatar that used his face and voice, allowing him to “talk” directly to the judge.

[...]

In November 2021, in the city of Chandler, Arizona, Chris Pelkey was shot and killed by Gabriel Horcasitas in a road rage altercation.

Horcasitas was tried and convicted of reckless manslaughter.

When it was time for Horcasitas to be sentenced by a judge, Pelkey’s family knew they wanted to make a statement – known as a “victim impact statement” – explaining to the judge who Pelkey had been when he was alive.

They found they couldn’t get the words right.

The solution for them turned out to be having Pelkey speak for himself by creating an AI-generated avatar that used his face and voice, allowing him to “talk” directly to the judge.

[...]

cross-posted from: https://mander.xyz/post/31779742

cross-posted from: https://mander.xyz/post/31779724

Here you can download the report: Building a Global Minerals Trust for a Just Green Transition [pdf]

UN scientists, experts propose "Global Minerals Trust" - a cooperative, multilateral governance mechanism to ensure sustainable, conflict-free access to critical minerals

Key points:

• Today, more than 70% of global production for key critical minerals is concentrated in just a few countries, raising serious concerns about supply security, market volatility, and geopolitical risk.
• Achieving a just and sustainable energy transition hinges on fair and reliable access to critical minerals—materials key for low-carbon technologies. However, global supply chains remain environmentally damaging and vulnerable to geopolitical tensions, creating systemic risks for both climate and economic goals.
• A Global Minerals Trust offers a new multilateral model to promote responsible stewardship, fair pricing, and secure equitable access to strategic minerals--balancing national sovereignty with planetary responsibility.
• The Trust can advance a just and circular transition by enabling pooled investment, transparent trade, mineral recycling, and benefit-sharing with resource-producing nations, particularly in the Global South.
• Global cooperation through platforms such as the G7, G20, IGF, and United Nations is essential to coordinate action and build a resilient, inclusive, and future-proof minerals governance system.
• The Trust would include independent audit mechanisms—similar to those used by the International Atomic Energy Agency—to ensure environmental and social safeguards.
• Countries would retain full sovereignty over their resources while committing to prioritize mineral flows for green technologies and avoid politicized supply disruptions.

Canada’s 2025 G7 presidency offers a strategic opportunity to facilitate early-stage consensus around the Trust, drawing on its strengths in environmental diplomacy and multilateral engagement, the report says.

[Edit to insert the correct link.]

cross-posted from: https://mander.xyz/post/31779724

Here you can download the report: Building a Global Minerals Trust for a Just Green Transition [pdf]

UN scientists, experts propose "Global Minerals Trust" - a cooperative, multilateral governance mechanism to ensure sustainable, conflict-free access to critical minerals

Key points:

• Today, more than 70% of global production for key critical minerals is concentrated in just a few countries, raising serious concerns about supply security, market volatility, and geopolitical risk.
• Achieving a just and sustainable energy transition hinges on fair and reliable access to critical minerals—materials key for low-carbon technologies. However, global supply chains remain environmentally damaging and vulnerable to geopolitical tensions, creating systemic risks for both climate and economic goals.
• A Global Minerals Trust offers a new multilateral model to promote responsible stewardship, fair pricing, and secure equitable access to strategic minerals--balancing national sovereignty with planetary responsibility.
• The Trust can advance a just and circular transition by enabling pooled investment, transparent trade, mineral recycling, and benefit-sharing with resource-producing nations, particularly in the Global South.
• Global cooperation through platforms such as the G7, G20, IGF, and United Nations is essential to coordinate action and build a resilient, inclusive, and future-proof minerals governance system.
• The Trust would include independent audit mechanisms—similar to those used by the International Atomic Energy Agency—to ensure environmental and social safeguards.
• Countries would retain full sovereignty over their resources while committing to prioritize mineral flows for green technologies and avoid politicized supply disruptions.

Canada’s 2025 G7 presidency offers a strategic opportunity to facilitate early-stage consensus around the Trust, drawing on its strengths in environmental diplomacy and multilateral engagement, the report says.

cross-posted from: https://mander.xyz/post/30972521

"Without public trust, effective climate policy is impossible," warns Vincent de Gooyert, sociologist and lead scientist of a paper jointly authored with several researchers from the Dutch Radboud University published this week in Earth System Governance.

"You see this, for example, in the development of carbon capture and storage (CCS). This technology is essential for achieving climate targets, but it is still barely off the ground. Industry wants government subsidies, the government says there is no public support for this, and society wants to see industry take responsibility first. But then you're stuck in a vicious circle."

...

The climate debate is currently often framed from a techno-economic perspective, explains De Gooyert. “Every solution must have direct market value. If that is lacking, no one is willing to take the first step. But a solution such as CCS has no direct market value. In addition to technology, regulations and subsidies, you really need that support, because a policy without support mainly results in resistance.”

De Gooyert collaborated with colleagues Senni Määttä, Sandrino Smeets and Heleen de Coninck on the article. Their recommendations are based, among other things, on extensive experience with discussions between government, business, citizens and other stakeholders on climate issues. They work with environmental organisations, industry and governments in European countries including Finland, Sweden, Spain and Belgium.

...

"What keeps coming back is that policy only works if there is mutual trust. People often think that if we explain it well, support will come naturally. But then you mainly have one-way communication, and research shows that this can be counterproductive. What you end up with is people thinking: there go those arrogant policymakers again, telling us what's good for us, and if we don't agree, they'll push it through anyway."

De Gooyert and his colleagues advocate the use of independent, scientific advisory councils, but also initiatives such as citizens' councils. "Citizens must be able to form an informed opinion independently, and there must be room for complexity and nuance. We must be honest with each other in such sessions: there are difficult choices to be made, but people must be given openness about the options and the consequences. Citizens deserve a say in their environment. To offer comfort to local residents, governments and businesses will also have to make sacrifices. We won't get there with the current method. Then we'll remain in the situation we're in now: no one willing to take big steps on climate policy, while time is running out."

"Without public trust, effective climate policy is impossible," warns Vincent de Gooyert, sociologist and lead scientist of a paper jointly authored with several researchers from the Dutch Radboud University published this week in Earth System Governance.

"You see this, for example, in the development of carbon capture and storage (CCS). This technology is essential for achieving climate targets, but it is still barely off the ground. Industry wants government subsidies, the government says there is no public support for this, and society wants to see industry take responsibility first. But then you're stuck in a vicious circle."

...

The climate debate is currently often framed from a techno-economic perspective, explains De Gooyert. “Every solution must have direct market value. If that is lacking, no one is willing to take the first step. But a solution such as CCS has no direct market value. In addition to technology, regulations and subsidies, you really need that support, because a policy without support mainly results in resistance.”

De Gooyert collaborated with colleagues Senni Määttä, Sandrino Smeets and Heleen de Coninck on the article. Their recommendations are based, among other things, on extensive experience with discussions between government, business, citizens and other stakeholders on climate issues. They work with environmental organisations, industry and governments in European countries including Finland, Sweden, Spain and Belgium.

...

"What keeps coming back is that policy only works if there is mutual trust. People often think that if we explain it well, support will come naturally. But then you mainly have one-way communication, and research shows that this can be counterproductive. What you end up with is people thinking: there go those arrogant policymakers again, telling us what's good for us, and if we don't agree, they'll push it through anyway."

De Gooyert and his colleagues advocate the use of independent, scientific advisory councils, but also initiatives such as citizens' councils. "Citizens must be able to form an informed opinion independently, and there must be room for complexity and nuance. We must be honest with each other in such sessions: there are difficult choices to be made, but people must be given openness about the options and the consequences. Citizens deserve a say in their environment. To offer comfort to local residents, governments and businesses will also have to make sacrifices. We won't get there with the current method. Then we'll remain in the situation we're in now: no one willing to take big steps on climate policy, while time is running out."

cross-posted from: https://mander.xyz/post/30849856

Financial literacy will become a core element of the New Zealand social sciences curriculum for Year 1-10 students from 2027. But what is being proposed presents a limited picture of the factors influencing people’s financial wellbeing.

The specifics of the curriculum have yet to be released. However, the government’s announcement emphasised a focus on individual responsibility. Young people will be taught what they need to live within their means and how to accumulate enough wealth for retirement.

When announcing the new curriculum, Commerce and Consumer Affairs Minister Scott Simpson said:

We are all consumers, and financial literacy can set young Kiwis up to be savvy consumers – whether it’s knowing how to invest wisely, choose the best loan at a bank, or even identify a scam.

However ... focusing only on individual responsibility risks ignoring the economic systems – and inequities – that shape young people’s lives.

Inequality in New Zealand has risen significantly in the past three decades. And the richest New Zealanders pay less tax than in similar OECD countries.

Knowing how to manage household accounts is, undeniably, an important skill. But individual skills can’t necessarily overcome the hurdles within the broader economic and social context.

...

The resources being used in the classroom also exclude any significant discussion of broader economic systems and policies. Much of what is currently available is created in partnership with banks and financial organisations such as ASB’s GetWise and BNZ’s SavY programmes. These focus on budgeting, saving, banking and paying off debt.

...

Copy link Email X (Twitter) Bluesky Facebook LinkedIn WhatsApp Print

Financial literacy will become a core element of the New Zealand social sciences curriculum for Year 1-10 students from 2027. But what is being proposed presents a limited picture of the factors influencing people’s financial wellbeing.

The specifics of the curriculum have yet to be released. However, the government’s announcement emphasised a focus on individual responsibility. Young people will be taught what they need to live within their means and how to accumulate enough wealth for retirement.

When announcing the new curriculum, Commerce and Consumer Affairs Minister Scott Simpson said:

We are all consumers, and financial literacy can set young Kiwis up to be savvy consumers – whether it’s knowing how to invest wisely, choose the best loan at a bank, or even identify a scam.

However, as our research shows, focusing only on individual responsibility risks ignoring the economic systems – and inequities – that shape young people’s lives.

Inequality in New Zealand has risen significantly in the past three decades. And the richest New Zealanders pay less tax than in similar OECD countries.

Knowing how to manage household accounts is, undeniably, an important skill. But individual skills can’t necessarily overcome the hurdles within the broader economic and social context. Europeans, get our weekly newsletter with analysis from European scholars Focus on managing money

Financial literacy – under the term “financial capability” – is only briefly mentioned in the current New Zealand curriculum. The topic is positioned as a potential outcome of learning across different subject areas, rather than taught as its own distinct class.

Classroom resources focus on individual actions. Students are taught to manage money, set goals and manage risks.

There is no real discussion of economic inequality in the curriculum. And even the few references there are have a strong focus on personal responsibility.

Teaching resources available for senior economics, for example, explore topics such as income, taxation, product costs and the scarcity of resources.

In senior business studies, references to economic inequality are indirect. For example, the “key concepts” page alludes to ideas such as “supply and demand” and “scarcity” that can loosely be associated with economic inequality. But it is not explicit.

The resources being used in the classroom also exclude any significant discussion of broader economic systems and policies. Much of what is currently available is created in partnership with banks and financial organisations such as ASB’s GetWise and BNZ’s SavY programmes. These focus on budgeting, saving, banking and paying off debt.

...

Globally, there has been a growing emphasis on financial literacy education, partly because of the complexity of modern financial products. And, as one study observed, “the risks of, and responsibility for, financial decisions are being increasingly shifted from governments and employers onto individuals”.

As political economist Chris Clarke has noted, there is an “irreconcilable gap” between the aims of financial literacy education and people’s “actual success in securing their security and wellbeing through financial markets”.

Other economists have pointed out how issues of intergenerational wealth and entrenched socioeconomic disadvantage – the “racial wealth gap” – cannot be overlooked when talking about “poor financial choices and decision making”.

But another form of financial literacy education is possible. Young people could be taught to understand and analyse how governments make decisions for the financial wellbeing of their citizens. They could also learn the value of employment rights, labour and workplace safety laws, and the role of unions and other civic initiatives.

Rather than focusing on taxes and balancing household accounts, students could learn about their individual responsibilities within the economic systems they are part of.