Johansen.se

Todd Phillips’ 2017 blockbuster Joker was a standalone origin story for the DC Universe’s most celebrated super-villain, The Joker, who has been Batman’s recurring nemesis since 1940. Drawing overtly on Martin Scorsese’s classic studies of American psychosis, Taxi Driver (1976) and The King of Comedy (1982), it was the boldest attempt yet to render comic-book characters with psychological depth and complexity on film.

But audiences and critics had mixed feelings about Joker, real name Arthur Fleck, who was portrayed by Joaquin Phoenix in an Oscar-winning performance. The film seemed ambivalent to Fleck’s murderous violence, which it portrayed as the inevitable consequence of his abandonment by a callous, shallow and vicious culture. It meant that some fans saw Joker not as pitiable – but heroic.

Seemingly taken aback by this reaction, Phillips’ belated sequel, Joker: Folie à Deux, sets out to deliver an unmistakable correction – at considerable length and with singleminded insistence. The film is an extended, self-righteous rebuke to anyone foolish enough to have mistaken Joker for an incel manifesto.

Spending US$200 million (£152 million) to berate the film’s potential audience in this fashion is certainly a bold and novel strategy. As an ethical stance, it may even be admirable. Unfortunately, dramatic interest, character development and audience engagement are all collateral damage of Phillips’ take-no-prisoners approach.

The trailer for Joker: Folie à Deux.

Few blockbuster films can ever have been this relentlessly claustrophobic, obstinately static and unrelievedly grim.

In Joker: Folie à Deux, Fleck is now incarcerated awaiting trial. In place of the first film’s picturesquely squalid Gotham locations, the sequel unfolds almost entirely in two, equally dreary institutional settings – the cells and corridors of Arkham asylum and the Gotham courthouse where his trial eventually takes place.

Almost nothing of note happens in either location, except for various moments designed to underscore Fleck’s psychosis for those who missed it first time around. That is, barring one key new ingredient.

Enter Harley Quinn

That new ingredient is, of course, the introduction of Lady Gaga as Harleen “Lee” Quinzel, a fellow Arkham patient enraptured by Joker’s exploits. She is the film’s version of Harley Quinn, the Joker’s sometime lover and a hugely popular DC character in her own right. But Gaga’s avid fan-base will surely be disappointed by how little this extraordinary talent is given to do.

Lady Gaga as Harley Quinn.
EPK

Gaga’s incandescent screen presence lends her scenes with Phoenix a dangerous, thrilling edge. It makes the emaciated, medicated Fleck’s reinvigoration through this partner-in-mayhem palpable and plausible. Later, however, once Quinzel leaves the asylum (and styles herself as Joker’s spokesperson and soulmate), she largely disappears. Except, that is, as a weirdly mute background presence through the interminable trial scenes that occupy most of the film’s second half.

Quinzel’s increasingly ambiguous motives are never really explored, let alone resolved, and her own subjectivity is almost entirely absent.

Gaga’s musical prowess powers the fantasy musical sequences where Fleck and Quinzel celebrate their nihilistic amour fou through performances of classic Broadway show tunes. These numbers supply the film’s few points of tonal or visual relief.

Though Phoenix’s song-and-dance skills are wildly outclassed, the sheer commitment of his performance throughout the film can’t be faulted. But, even here, Phillips keeps Gaga’s performances on a tight (and visually underwhelming) leash, shackled to the film’s dogged, browbeating pursuit of its central thesis.

Phoenix and Gaga have several song-and-dance numbers throughout the film.
EPK

Phillips teases the audience throughout with the prospect that Joker and Quinn will at any moment break free of the retro social-realist grime around them into their full-blown comic-book personas.

But as the film trudges on, it becomes increasingly apparent that not only this tease – but its frustration and ultimate denial – is the entire point. Joker: Folie à Deux, in effect, sets out to deliver a punishment to its audience for their callow indulgence of Fleck’s psychosis in the first film. It relentlessly drums home the yawning chasm between the incendiary revolutionary nihilism Joker’s acolytes (personified in the film by Quinzel) project upon him, and the desperate misery and mental agony of his actual condition.

When Fleck fires his legal counsel and chooses instead to represent himself, now in full Joker regalia, the stage finally seems set for Joker – and the film alike – to take flight. Not least given that countless Hollywood courtroom dramas have primed us to anticipate legal pyrotechnics and stunning reversals of fortune. But instead Joker: Folie A Deux maintains its dour mood all the way to the thuddingly anticlimactic end.

As Fleck finally falters, unable to live up to or live out the distorted self-image projected onto the Joker persona, Quinzel walks out on him. It’s Joker she wanted, not Fleck. Whatever our better moral judgments, viewers may well share her disappointment. But for Phillips, it would seem, that disappointment is precisely the point.

Looking for something good? Cut through the noise with a carefully curated selection of the latest releases, live events and exhibitions, straight to your inbox every fortnight, on Fridays. Sign up here. Läs mer…

The UK government has announced that it will transfer sovereignty of a remote cluster of islands in the Indian Ocean to Mauritius. The final treaty outlining the transfer of the Chagos Islands, where there is a significant US military base, is expected to be announced in the coming months.

Negotiations for this transfer began in 2022 under the UK’s then foreign secretary, James Cleverly, but were paused the following year by his successor, David Cameron.

The talks resumed in 2024 under the new Labour government, with the recent agreement marking the end of a longstanding sovereignty dispute between the UK and Mauritius.

The news has sparked significant debate. Chagossians are concerned that they, as the Indigenous people forcibly removed from the islands to make way for the military base between 1967 and 1973, have not been included in the negotiations.

Others view the move as a betrayal of British interests. Mauritius is a country that maintains close ties with China, so critics argue this transfer could open the door to increased Chinese influence in the Indian Ocean.

What is often missing from these discussions, however, is the critical historical context that explains why this transfer is happening now, and why the colony was established in the Indian Ocean in the first place.

The Chagos archipelago in the middle of the Indian Ocean.
TUBS / Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA

The British Indian Ocean Territory was created in November 1965. It encompassed seven atolls in the Chagos archipelago, which were legally separated from Mauritius along with three islands — Aldabra, Desroches and Farquhar — that were later ceded to the Seychelles when it gained independence in 1976.

The timing of the British Indian Ocean Territory’s creation is significant. While Britain was decolonising many of its territories during the 1960s — a decade that saw over 20 colonies gain independence — it, in the words of researcher John Madeley, “quietly acquired a new one”.

The creation of this territory, and the leasing of the tropical atoll of Diego Garcia to the US for a military base, were seen as essential for maintaining British and western influence in a strategically critical part of the world.

In the late 1960s, Britain was facing considerable economic and military challenges. The devaluation of the pound in 1967 and the Labour government’s decision to withdraw British forces east of the Suez Canal in 1968 led to a diminished defence role in the Indian Ocean.

These factors, combined with cold war tensions and the growing Soviet presence in the region, created a need for the UK to retain a foothold in the area during a period of widespread decolonisation.

The British Indian Ocean Territory was established through a statutory instrument, which legally detached the islands from Mauritius without requiring parliamentary oversight. Britain paid Mauritius £3 million as part of the agreement.

Mauritius, however, has consistently maintained its claim to the Chagos Islands. It lodged formal complaints with the British government, but the UK maintained that the islands would only be returned when they were no longer needed for defence purposes.

While the recent agreement marks the transfer of sovereignty, it does not fully return the islands to Mauritius. It includes a new 99-year lease for the US military base, thereby maintaining the presence of the facility.

A protracted campaign

The forced removal of the Chagossian population from their homeland was carried out in secret. Various alternatives for resettling the 2,000 displaced islanders were considered, including the possibility of relocating them to Aldabra. But this was ultimately rejected due to the island’s population of endangered tortoises.

The covert nature of the eviction was intended to avoid embarrassment for the US government, which played a key role in the establishment of the base on Diego Garcia. The secrecy also helped to secure US funding for the project.

British officials feared that if details of the eviction were leaked, it might jeopardise its agreement with the US to each pay half of the compensation for the Chagossians. They were also concerned it would put the UK’s £5 million (at 1965 prices) discount on its purchase of Polaris nuclear missiles at risk, which was part of a clandestine arrangement between the two governments.

The military base on Diego Garcia has been crucial for US global military strategy – a key node for projecting power in the Middle East and Afghanistan. During the so-called war on terror, launched after the 9/11 attacks in New York, its significance grew due to its proximity to these regions and its use as a hub for extraordinary rendition flights.

This strategic importance delayed any serious consideration of transferring sovereignty for many years. However, the new agreement appears to have the backing of the US. In a press release, the UK government stated that “for the first time in more than 50 years, the status of the base [on Diego Garcia] will be undisputed and legally secure”.

American military aircraft over Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean.
US Navy/Wikimedia, CC BY-NC-ND

The decision to transfer sovereignty now is probably motivated by several factors. One of the primary drivers is the UK’s desire to reset its relations with nations in the global south, which have become strained in recent years.

It also helps remove a lingering colonial issue from Britain’s international agenda, especially after years of legal and diplomatic pressure from Mauritius and international bodies. For the UK, it signals the end of its final colonial territory in Africa, a significant milestone in its decolonisation process.

The transfer of sovereignty over the Chagos Islands may raise concerns about strategic vulnerabilities and geopolitical influence. But it also represents a step towards addressing historical injustices and resolving a longstanding territorial dispute.

The US military base will remain, ensuring continued western strategic presence in the region, while the UK moves to close a controversial chapter of its colonial past. Läs mer…

The rapid pace of unfolding events between Israel and the Palestinians, and more broadly in the Middle East, can make people think change is inevitable.

Political scientists like me sometimes see significant and disruptive events, such as the Hamas attack on Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, and their aftermath as drivers of heightened uncertainty with the potential to drive broader change.

But in the year since then, not much has changed.

Relatively stable status quo on Oct. 6

Throughout the early part of 2023, the relationship between Israel and the Palestinians and the broader region seemed generally stable. In September 2023, U.S. National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan declared that the Middle East was “quieter than it has been in two decades.”

The Palestinians widely believed that their representatives – the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank and Hamas in the Gaza Strip – were corrupt and deserved little or no public trust. At the same time, Palestinian factionalism and the divide between the West Bank and Gaza was unbridgeable.

Israeli society had experienced nine months of popular demonstrations against conservative government reforms, including proposed limits on judicial power. In fact, elements of Israeli democracy, including its laws and liberal values, had been weakening for many years.

Israel’s relations with the Palestinians were stable, if tense. Israel exercised military control over the Palestinians living in the occupied West Bank.

Israel’s approach to managing its conflict with the Palestinians relied on surveillance technology and intelligence-gathering to provide border security with Gaza. Periodic military operations were believed to be deterring Hamas from open violence. So were economic incentives, such as millions of dollars in cash given to Hamas through Qatar and work permits for Gaza residents to enter Israel.

The government of Israel’s approach was intended to break the ties between Gaza and the West Bank, with the aim of weakening the Palestinian Authority. The ultimate objective was to prevent the reemergence of political negotiations around the prospect of Palestinian statehood.

In the U.S., the Biden administration had focused its attention abroad primarily on China. What attention it was paying to the Middle East largely involved a defense pact with Saudi Arabia that would have included restoring diplomatic relations between the Saudis and Israel, with little to no attention to the Palestinian issue.

For other key countries in the Middle East, including Egypt and Saudi Arabia, less focus on the Palestinian issue was also convenient. Their national security goals of countering rising Iranian power aligned with those of Israel.

Iran, too, had been interested in maintaining the status quo. It had been seeking to restore ties with various Arab governments and to get some relief from economic sanctions. Some relief came as part of the August 2023 prisoner exchange with the U.S.

U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken, right, greets Qatari Minister of State Mohammed bin Abdulaziz Al-Khulaifi during a meeting in Doha, Qatar, in August 2024.
Foreign Ministry of Qatar / Handout/Anadolu via Getty Images

A prospect of change

Pundits and analysts saw the Oct. 7 attack and the ensuing Israel bombing campaign and then ground invasion of Gaza as creating an opportunity for change.

Among observers, a consensus emerged that the Hamas attack had made clear that Palestinian demands for self-determination were not going to quietly disappear.

Suggestions for action included resuming political negotiations for a Palestinian state, reforming the Palestinian Authority to restore its legitimacy, and getting neighboring countries involved in securing and rebuilding Gaza in exchange for improved diplomatic relations with Israel.

Calls for change came from across the world community, with public demonstrations worldwide. And international legal institutions called for peace and calm: The International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court opened inquiries into actions of both Hamas and Israel.

Little change a year later

A year later, little of what people imagined could happen has happened.

The Palestinian Authority focuses on its own survival amid growing instability in the West Bank, including violence from Israeli settlers, operations by the Israeli military and resistance by Palestinian militants.

In Gaza, humanitarian conditions are dire, including acute levels of hunger, water scarcity and poor sanitary conditions. Some fighting continues, while Hamas attempts to regroup where feasible.

In Israel, as the war against Hamas continued, so has the process of Israel’s democratic backsliding, marked with limitations on free speech and more widespread nationalist hawkish sentiment. Despite persistent protests and calls for resignations, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s pro-war coalition survives and is likely to survive until the planned October 2026 elections.

The Israeli governing coalition’s statements and actions indicate it intends to avoid conflict resolution by expanding Israeli settlements in the West Bank and extending security buffer zones under Israeli military control within Lebanon and Gaza.

The U.S. was active, with Secretary of State Antony Blinken visiting the region nine times, and President Joe Biden officially embracing negotiations for a cease-fire and a hostage deal in the short term, and regional negotiations in the long term. After one cease-fire and the release of more than 100 hostages, none of these efforts produced further cessation of war or hostage releases.

As the fall election approaches, it is unclear which of the United States’ efforts will continue. Most of the American public – 62% – wants the U.S. to play a minor role, or no role at all, in resolving the Israel-Hamas war.

Video shows Iranian missiles attacking Israel on Oct. 1, 2024.

Wider interests prevail

Other Middle Eastern nations publicly support and often participate in U.S.-led negotiations, but they are all careful to maintain their own interests.

For instance, Egypt and Jordan are concerned about the potential for more Palestinians to flee the fighting and come to their territories. The Saudis and the United Arab Emirates worry that the conflict could spill over into other countries.

Iran’s position has strengthened somewhat, with an increase in power and attention to its proxies, including Hamas, Hezbollah, the Assad regime in Syria, Shiite militias in both Iraq and Syria, and the Houthis in Yemen.

Until the Oct. 1, 2024, missile attacks on Israel, Iran had consistently signaled that its main interest was to avoid a regional war. Its new president, Masoud Pezeshkian, has repeatedly spoken of his desire for a constructive dialogue with the West.

Overall, in spite of nearly a year of fighting and the loss of so many lives, there is more continuity than change. International courts take their time and have limited power. Israel’s democratic backsliding, its 57-year occupation of the Palestinian territories, Palestinian fragmentation and weak governance, and the lack of real commitment by nearby countries and the U.S. continue – and so does the lack of any stable or peaceful resolution. Läs mer…

The US president, Joe Biden, is pursuing a last-minute attempt to shore up American support for Ukraine – ahead of a possible victory for Donald Trump in the US election on November 5.

Biden feels that US foreign policy on Ukraine is under threat, if Trump wins. The US president has been a longstanding advocate of Ukrainian sovereignty, signing a ten-year security commitment to provide military support to Kyiv back in June. But, with only weeks left in office and facing the possibility of Trump winning the 2024 election, this raises a big question about who will – or won’t – be on Ukraine’s side from January 20 next year. Biden is now trying to stack the political deck in Ukraine’s favour before he goes.

Trump is an unpredictable foreign policy leader – and it is difficult to say exactly what he would do on Ukraine if elected next month.

But the signs are not good for Ukraine. Trump is seen as wanting to appease Putin. He has also publicly attacked Ukrainian president Volodyymyr Zelensky. Doubts were raised about whether Trump would meet Zelensky during the latter’s recent visit to the US. In the end Trump did meet the Ukrainian leader, and apparently it didn’t go too badly.

US and EU officials have expressed concern that Trump would halt funding to Ukraine and even force Zelensky into accepting a ceasefire and possibly giving up territory to Putin. As a result, Biden sees a need to Trump-proof US policy on the conflict.

Backing up US support for Ukraine also furthers Biden’s aims even if his vice-president, Kamala Harris, wins the election. Committed to ending the war, Biden wants to leave Harris with a solid policy footing on which to build a resolution. After such a polarised election campaign, Harris will be a controversial figure and a lightning rod for Republican ire if she wins office. Biden will want Harris to be in the best position possible to bring the conflict to a close.

Biden also wants to leave a legacy. He has spent his entire career working towards being president and was hoping for a second term. He cares about what he will be able to say he’s achieved in office. Last-minute progress on Ukraine would be one final win to be remembered for.

Biden has now adopted a two-pronged approach to Ukraine. First, he wants to make a strong and public statement that the US will stand by Ukraine. The cornerstone of this was a high-profile meeting at the White House last week between Biden, Harris, and Zelensky. Biden is trying to show that Ukraine is still “a top priority” for the US and wants to create an expectation of future American support – preferably in a way Trump can’t then ignore.

Biden announces new aid package for Ukraine.

Second, Biden’s public stance is being backed up with aid. Biden recently announced a “surge in security assistance” for Ukraine in the form of an US$8 billion (£6.07 billion) package. The funding will provide new weapons to enhance Ukraine’s long-range strike capacity, which also suggests that Biden is sanctioning more offensive tactics against Russia and not purely short-range defence – although Washington does not currently permit Ukraine to fire the long-range missiles it has provided into Russia beyond the border region. The package also includes the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative. This scheme allows the US government to purchase weapons for Ukraine from external companies without having to take them from American stockpiles.

As a further part of the surge, Biden has told the US Defense Department to use up all the security assistance funding already allocated to Ukraine by the end of his presidency. Biden is making sure that this money does actually go to Ukraine – in case any successor tries to change the allocation or redirect the funding.

If it quacks like a (lame) duck

Once the election is over, Biden will still have time in office before the new president takes over in January 2025. This two-month period is referred to as a “lame duck presidency”, but freed from the need for re-election, presidents can sometimes push through major policy decisions in their final few weeks in power.

But Biden has limited influence, especially while the election campaign is still happening. He wants to publicise the issue of Ukraine as a key aspect of his strategy, but risks being criticised if he does anything that takes the spotlight off Harris. The outgoing president has involved Harris in his efforts so far but the Democrats see this as her time now. Harris’s campaign will direct the wider party position on Ukraine – not Biden.

Biden and Harris’ recent meeting with Zelensky was supposed to outline a “victory plan” to bring a diplomatic solution to the war. But it isn’t clear how this potential bid to push Putin into a peace agreement that Ukraine considers fair will change the situation – more specifically, what Biden can do about this in his short-term position. He can build on policies already in place – such as aid provision – but he will not be able to introduce any radical solution to the crisis.

And a radical solution is what is needed in Ukraine. The reality is that Biden’s foreign policy efforts have always been largely welcome to Ukraine – but they have never enough to bring about a resolution. More tinkering at the edges is not going to end the war anytime soon. It is also unclear how far Biden’s actions would moderate Trump. Ukraine is positive about Biden’s new commitment to aid, but this still won’t be much of a firewall against a Trump presidency that could favour Putin. Ultimately, Biden is doing little more than crossing his fingers for Ukraine as he walks out the White House door. Läs mer…

Hope, it seems, springs eternal in Tory breasts. No matter how disastrous the outlook might appear for their party, members can always cheer themselves up by exercising their right to choose new leaders, in the full knowledge that within months they will be plotting against them for not being “conservative” enough.

This time around, morale was boosted even more because a crucial stage in the usual post-disaster leadership battle coincided with the party’s annual conference. Conservatives like to feel noticed, and despite distracting happenings in the Middle East, the beauty contest staged in Birmingham was sure to win a place in the headlines.

The party is no stranger to conferences dominated by the leadership question. At Blackpool in 1963, three contenders – Rab Butler, Reggie Maudling and Lord Hailsham – paraded their credentials to succeed Harold Macmillan. In those days, though, the final decision was taken in a secretive internal selection process rather than being thrown open to the members. And the party was still in office in 1963, rather than seeking an electoral saviour.

A more comparable conference pageant took place in 2005, when five declared candidates made 20-minute pitches. Famously, David Cameron’s unscripted effort transformed the contest, making him the clear front-runner in place of the pre-conference favourite, David Davis. However, once again the parallel is inexact: although the Tories were meeting after a general election defeat, 2005 was a third successive failure and Cameron’s audience was prepared to forgive him anything – even a claim to be Tony Blair’s heir.

Few conference speeches wear well, but time has been particularly unkind to Cameron’s. Telling his audience that the party must change if it wanted to appeal to young voters, he invited them to “build together a new generation of Conservatives”. He urged: “Let’s switch a new generation on to Conservative ideas. Let’s dream a new generation of Conservative dreams.”

A compassionate Conservative party built in his image would, he promised, transform the political process so that young people would no longer tell him “how sick they are of the whole political system – the shouting, finger-pointing, backbiting and point-scoring in the House of Commons. That’s all got to go.” It didn’t.

Before this year’s conference, it was interesting to guess which of the party’s numerous recent leaders would receive name-checks from the contenders. Boris Johnson won a heartfelt tribute from Tom Tugendhat for having saved Ukraine; Robert Jenrick revealed with apparent pride that he had given his daughter the unusual middle name Thatcher. No one seemed anxious to praise either Theresa May or Liz Truss (although the latter attracted a decent audience for an unapologetic fringe appearance).

The nearest approach to a reference to Cameron was James Cleverly’s claim that Brexit was a Conservative achievement. Cameron certainly deserves his share of the credit, although leaving the European Union was not among the “Conservative dreams” he evoked back in 2005.

I was the future once

There was one part of Cameron’s 2005 speech that was just as relevant 19 bruising years later. To those who urged that the party should move to right, he replied: “That will turn us into a fringe party, never able to challenge for government again. I don’t want to let that happen to this party. Do you?” The audience of 2005 was too polite (or temporarily star-struck) to give him their honest answer.

David Cameron giving his conference speech in 2005.
Alamy

For the defiantly unmodernised attendees of 2024, beauty is in the right eye of the beholder.

In 2005, much of Cameron’s speech concerned his shadow policy brief – education. He spoke favourably about overseas aid, and although he made a couple of sly digs at the EU, he said nothing at all about immigration. The candidates of 2024 occasionally strayed outside that topic – to talk about maternity pay or the alleged anti-terrorist tactics of British soldiers – but there is no real escape from the party’s immigration monomania. Thus, any debate on the issue of human rights becomes a matter of migration statistics rather than humanity, or rights.

By all accounts, the mood at the Birmingham conference was buoyant compared to Labour’s Liverpool doomfest. Yet while Conservative members exulted in the new government’s misfortunes, somewhere in the party’s secret soul must be a realisation that, when it tries to explain what went wrong this time, its search should begin with its frivolous process of leader selection.

When Rishi Sunak steps down, there will be as many living ex-Tory leaders as former England football managers. Whatever the qualities of the latest quartet of aspirants, easily the best speech at Birmingham was delivered by the retiring Sunak – who would probably have been beaten in a leadership ballot if the right had found anyone to oppose him.

Another past conference is relevant here. In 1963, after that year’s beauty pageant, the party’s grandees decided that the new leader should be none of the above and instead drafted in the previously unconsidered Alec Douglas-Home. This would be unthinkable nowadays – apart from anything else, the party’s grandees are no longer very grand. However, even if Douglas-Home was the wrong choice in 1963, the old undemocratic “magic circle” was at least designed to come up with a leader, rather than someone who is foredoomed to follow the whims of the party unfaithful.

There are two kinds of Tory ex-leader: the ones who are sadder and wiser, and those who are just older. The party would be well-advised to drag one of the former types out of retirement, to serve as a caretaker while it decides on its future direction. The Conservative catch-22 is that the ones who are fit to serve have no wish to do so. Not even Lord “Comeback” Cameron could be persuaded – an instance of twice bitten, thrice shy.

There were plenty of “Conservative dreamers” at the Birmingham beauty contest, but Cameroonian “compassion” was in pretty short supply. Läs mer…

There has been a lot of research on the types of people who believe conspiracy theories, and their reasons for doing so. But there’s a wrinkle: My colleagues and I have found that there are a number of people sharing conspiracies online who don’t believe their own content.

They are opportunists. These people share conspiracy theories to promote conflict, cause chaos, recruit and radicalize potential followers, make money, harass, or even just to get attention.

There are several types of this sort of conspiracy-spreader trying to influence you.

Coaxing conspiracists – the extremists

In our chapter of a new book on extremism and conspiracies, my colleagues and I discuss evidence that certain extremist groups intentionally use conspiracy theories to entice adherents. They are looking for a so-called “gateway conspiracy” that will lure someone into talking to them, and then be vulnerable to radicalization. They try out multiple conspiracies to see what sticks.

Research shows that people with positive feelings for extremist groups are significantly more likely to knowingly share false content online. For instance, the disinformation-monitoring company Blackbird.AI tracked over 119 million COVID-19 conspiracy posts from May 2020, when activists were protesting pandemic restrictions and lockdowns in the United States. Of these, over 32 million tweets were identified as high on their manipulation index. Those posted by various extremist groups were particularly likely to carry markers of insincerity. For instance, one group, the Boogaloo Bois, generated over 610,000 tweets, of which 58% were intent on incitement and radicalization.

You can also just take the word of the extremists themselves. When the Boogaloo Bois militia group showed up at the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection, for example, members stated they didn’t actually endorse the stolen election conspiracy, but were there to “mess with the federal government.” Aron McKillips, a Boogaloo member arrested in 2022 as part of an FBI sting, is another example of an opportunistic conspiracist. In his own words: “I don’t believe in anything. I’m only here for the violence.”

Combative conspiracists – the disinformants

Governments love conspiracy theories. The classic example of this is the 1903 document known as the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion,” in which Russia constructed an enduring myth about Jewish plans for world domination. More recently, China used artificial intelligence to construct a fake conspiracy theory about the August 2023 Maui wildfire.

Often the behavior of the conspiracists gives them away. Years later, Russia eventually confessed to lying about AIDS in the 1980s. But even before admitting to the campaign, its agents had forged documents to support the conspiracy. Forgeries aren’t created by accident. They knew they were lying.

As for other conspiracies it hawks, Russia is famous for taking both sides in any contentious issue, spreading lies online to foment conflict and polarization. People who actually believe in a conspiracy tend to stick to a side. Meanwhile, Russians knowingly deploy what one analyst has called a “fire hose of falsehoods.”

Likewise, while Chinese officials were spreading conspiracies about American roots of the coronavirus in 2020, China’s National Health Commission was circulating internal reports tracing the source to a pangolin.

Some people just want to stir up trouble.
Planet Flem/DigitalVision Vectors via Getty Images

Chaos conspiracists – the trolls

In general, research has found that individuals with what scholars call a high “need for chaos” are more likely to indiscriminately share conspiracies, regardless of belief. These are the everyday trolls who share false content for a variety of reasons, none of which are benevolent. Dark personalities and dark motives are prevalent.

For instance, in the wake of the first assassination attempt on Donald Trump, a false accusation arose online about the identity of the shooter and his motivations. The person who first posted this claim knew he was making up a name and stealing a photo. The intent was apparently to harass the Italian sports blogger whose photo was stolen. This fake conspiracy was seen over 300,000 times on the social platform X and picked up by multiple other conspiracists eager to fill the information gap about the assassination attempt.

Commercial conspiracists – the profiteers

Often when I encounter a conspiracy theory I ask: “What does the sharer have to gain? Are they telling me this because they have an evidence-backed concern, or are they trying to sell me something?”

When researchers tracked down the 12 people primarily responsible for the vast majority of anti-vaccine conspiracies online, most of them had a financial investment in perpetuating these misleading narratives.

Some people who fall into this category might truly believe their conspiracy, but their first priority is finding a way to make money from it. For instance, conspiracist Alex Jones bragged that his fans would “buy anything.” Fox News and its on-air personality Tucker Carlson publicized lies about voter fraud in the 2020 election to keep viewers engaged, while behind-the-scenes communications revealed they did not endorse what they espoused.

Profit doesn’t just mean money. People can also profit from spreading conspiracies if it garners them influence or followers, or protects their reputation. Even social media companies are reluctant to combat conspiracies because they know they attract more clicks.

Common conspiracists – the attention-getters

You don’t have to be a profiteer to like some attention. Plenty of regular people share content where they doubt the veracity, or know it is false.

These posts are common: Friends, family and acquaintances share the latest conspiracy theory with “could this be true?” queries or “seems close enough to the truth” taglines. Their accompanying comments show that sharers are, at minimum, unsure about the truthfulness of the content, but they share nonetheless. Many share without even reading past a headline. Still others, approximately 7% to 20% of social media users, share despite knowing the content is false. Why?

Some claim to be sharing to inform people “just in case” it is true. But this sort of “sound the alarm” reason actually isn’t that common.

Often, folks are just looking for attention or other personal benefit. They don’t want to miss out on a hot-topic conversation. They want the likes and shares. They want to “stir the pot.” Or they just like the message and want to signal to others that they share a common belief system.

For frequent sharers, it just becomes a habit.

The dangers of spreading lies

Over time, the opportunists may end up convincing themselves. After all, they will eventually have to come to terms with why they are engaging in unethical and deceptive, if not destructive, behavior. They may have a rationale for why lying is good. Or they may convince themselves that they aren’t lying by claiming they thought the conspiracy was true all along.

It’s important to be cautious and not believe everything you read. These opportunists don’t even believe everything they write – and share. But they want you to. So be aware that the next time you share an unfounded conspiracy theory, online or offline, you could be helping an opportunist. They don’t buy it, so neither should you. Be aware before you share. Don’t be what these opportunists derogatorily refer to as “a useful idiot.” Läs mer…

For the past 20 years, Yelp has been providing a platform for people to share their experiences at businesses ranging from bars to barbershops. According to the company, in that time the platform has published 287 million user reviews of over 600,000 businesses.

There’s a reason review sites like Yelp are so popular. No one wants to spend their hard-earned money on a dud product, or fork over cash for a bad meal. So we’ll seek advice from strangers and use various clues to judge if a particular review is authentic and reliable.

The very first Yelp review was a four-star review of Kabuki Springs & Spa, published on Oct. 12, 2004.
Yelp

But sometimes these cues can lead shoppers down the wrong path. Other times, the reviews are simply fake.

I’m a linguist who studies “word of mouth,” or what people tell each other about their experiences. Advances in text analysis have allowed researchers like me to detect patterns and draw conclusions from millions of product reviews.

Here are some key findings from research that I and others in my field have conducted:

Signs of foul play

How can you tell if the review you’re reading is sincere?

Competition might sometimes push businesses to pay people to compose positive reviews for their products or negative reviews for competitors. Bots can also manufacture fake reviews that sound like they’ve been written by humans.

As a result, fake reviews have become a big problem that threatens to delegitimize online reviews altogether.

For example, a recent study estimates that fake reviews compel consumers to waste 12 cents for every dollar they spend online.

The reality is that people do a pretty poor job at discerning a fake review from a real one. It’s essentially a coin flip – studies have shown that shoppers can correctly identify a fake review only half of the time.

Researchers have also tried to identify what characterizes a fake review. They’ve proposed that those that are too long or too short, in addition to those that don’t use the past tense or a first-person pronoun.

Yelp has long been well aware of the issue. The company developed an algorithm that identifies and filters out “unhelpful” reviews – and that includes reviews that are too short.

It’s important to think about the difference between how you might write a review after you’ve tried a product, or if you’re coming up with something out of thin air.

In a 2023 study, my colleagues and I suggested that the main difference lies in whether specific language is used. For example, a real review will contain words that are more concrete and describe the “what, where, when” of the experience.

By contrast, if someone hasn’t actually stayed at, say, the hotel they are reviewing, or didn’t dine at the restaurant they are writing about, they’ll use abstract generalities loosely related to the experience.

It’s the difference between reading, in a review, “The room was clean and the beach was nice” and “The room was so clean, we felt like it was new. A sandy beach was steps away, which allowed us to easily take a dip after our hike. The shimmering ocean water also made the view from the window special.”

Real reviews can still mislead

Even if all fake reviews were filtered out, do product reviews still help you make better decisions?

As is often the case in marketing research, it depends.

Researchers have delved into this question for years and can point to a variety of review features that can help your decision making.

For example, you might assume that if you’ve read a few reviews for a product, and they are similar to each other, this means there is a consensus about the product. Indeed, studies have shown that similarity across opinions is more likely to make readers more certain.

My research shows that similar reviews increase consumer certainty about the product. However, I’ve also found that these similar reviews are more likely to be written by consumers who are less certain about their experience with the product. It’s likely that they simply repeated what others said in their reviews, pulling from those reviews to craft their own.

This creates a paradox. Readers of reviews that sound similar will be more certain that they’re making the correct decision, even as the writers of those same reviews were less certain. At the same time, reviews that differ from each other will elicit hesitancy in readers, even though the writers of the review were in fact more certain about their experiences.

Consensus doesn’t mean confidence.
Kenstocker/iStock via Getty Images Plus

The text isn’t the only element that influences readers. In ongoing research, I discovered that the sheer number of available reviews on a platform can influence how you perceive each individual review.

So, if you’re reading a review and it is one of, say, 1,572 reviews, you’ll think it is a more credible review than if that same review was one of, say, 72 reviews.

This might seem illogical, but it can be explained by the human tendency to take quantity as a sign of quality: If a product has many reviews, this could mean that it’s popular and that many people have purchased it. A halo effect occurs, and you then subconsciously believe that everything about the product – including its reviews – is better.

But for the most part, despite these issues and others, consumers still make better purchasing decisions with reviews than without them.

It’s just a matter of knowing what to look out for. Läs mer…

Social service nonprofits had high rates of staff turnover and a hard time filling vacant positions in 2022 as the COVID-19 pandemic was ending.

Low salaries, inadequate benefits, staff burnout and a shortage of qualified job applicants were largely to blame. The staffing problems were so severe that some of the people leading these organizations were afraid that they might have to close their doors.

That’s what our research team, composed of eight social work scholars, found when we interviewed 27 social service agency managers in a metropolitan area in the Southeast.

These nonprofits provided an array of services, including care for people with substance use disorders and mental health conditions, as well as housing assistance, other kinds of health care and free food distribution.

No matter their specific focus, these nonprofit managers told us that they saw heightened demand for services since the start of the pandemic.

For example, they observed an increase in the number of people who were using opioids and other substances during and after the pandemic. This led to a greater demand for substance use disorder treatment.

More people were also struggling with food insecurity and asking for help getting food. Staffing problems made it harder to meet these needs. Some nonprofits had to keep people on waitlists or turn people away – even if their needs were dire.

One substance use disorder treatment facility said that several potential patients had fatal overdoses while on the waitlist for their services. This agency was in a rural area, and the people seeking its help had nowhere else to go.

Some of the nonprofits could retain their workers if they offered perks such as flexible work schedules and the freedom to work from home. Yet, many social service agencies fill critical needs that cannot be adapted to virtual employment.

Some of the nonprofit leaders told us that they strove to improve their workplace culture to retain employees. But that was not always enough to keep employees when the salaries were very low during a period of historically rapid inflation.

Why it matters

U.S. social service nonprofits provide many critical services, including support for older adults and people with disabilities.

Many of these agencies rely on Medicare and Medicaid funding, which can be challenging because the reimbursement rates for therapy sessions, caregiving and other health service categories are very low.

The nonprofit leaders whom we interviewed said it was hard for their agencies to cover the full cost of salaries and benefits for their employees with the money they get from Medicare and Medicaid. Some of them said their organizations couldn’t afford to pay their workers enough money for them to cover basic living expenses.

Shortages of addiction and mental health counselors in the U.S. are dire. Approximately 123 million Americans – more than 1 in 3 people – live in places without enough mental health providers to see every patient seeking care.

Access to treatment is further restricted because some mental health providers are reportedly choosing to stop accepting any insurance payments at all because of the low reimbursement rates and burdensome paperwork required. This means that many people with mental health needs are having trouble getting care without paying high rates – turning therapy into a luxury.

Therapy can cost US$150 or more per session without any payments from an insurance company, compared with a copay that will probably be in the $20-$50 range per session if the care is covered.

What’s next

Our team has been training new professionals over the past 11 years. So far, we have trained 297 mental health professionals. We plan to renew the federal grants we received for this work so we can keep helping to fill this critical gap at a faster rate.

The Research Brief is a short take about interesting academic work. Läs mer…

NASA plans to send crewed missions to Mars over the next decade – but the 140 million-mile (225 million-kilometer) journey to the red planet could take several months to years round trip.

This relatively long transit time is a result of the use of traditional chemical rocket fuel. An alternative technology to the chemically propelled rockets the agency develops now is called nuclear thermal propulsion, which uses nuclear fission and could one day power a rocket that makes the trip in just half the time.

Nuclear fission involves harvesting the incredible amount of energy released when an atom is split by a neutron. This reaction is known as a fission reaction. Fission technology is well established in power generation and nuclear-powered submarines, and its application to drive or power a rocket could one day give NASA a faster, more powerful alternative to chemically driven rockets.

NASA and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency are jointly developing NTP technology. They plan to deploy and demonstrate the capabilities of a prototype system in space in 2027 – potentially making it one of the first of its kind to be built and operated by the U.S.

Nuclear thermal propulsion could also one day power maneuverable space platforms that would protect American satellites in and beyond Earth’s orbit. But the technology is still in development.

I am an associate professor of nuclear engineering at the Georgia Institute of Technology whose research group builds models and simulations to improve and optimize designs for nuclear thermal propulsion systems. My hope and passion is to assist in designing the nuclear thermal propulsion engine that will take a crewed mission to Mars.

Nuclear versus chemical propulsion

Conventional chemical propulsion systems use a chemical reaction involving a light propellant, such as hydrogen, and an oxidizer. When mixed together, these two ignite, which results in propellant exiting the nozzle very quickly to propel the rocket.

Scientists and engineers are working on nuclear thermal propulsion systems that would take hydrogen propellant, pump it into a nuclear reactor to generate energy and expel propellant out the nozzle to lift the rocket.
NASA Glenn Research Center

These systems do not require any sort of ignition system, so they’re reliable. But these rockets must carry oxygen with them into space, which can weigh them down. Unlike chemical propulsion systems, nuclear thermal propulsion systems rely on nuclear fission reactions to heat the propellant that is then expelled from the nozzle to create the driving force or thrust.

In many fission reactions, researchers send a neutron toward a lighter isotope of uranium, uranium-235. The uranium absorbs the neutron, creating uranium-236. The uranium-236 then splits into two fragments – the fission products – and the reaction emits some assorted particles.

Fission reactions create lots of heat energy.

More than 400 nuclear power reactors in operation around the world currently use nuclear fission technology. The majority of these nuclear power reactors in operation are light water reactors. These fission reactors use water to slow down the neutrons and to absorb and transfer heat. The water can create steam directly in the core or in a steam generator, which drives a turbine to produce electricity.

Nuclear thermal propulsion systems operate in a similar way, but they use a different nuclear fuel that has more uranium-235. They also operate at a much higher temperature, which makes them extremely powerful and compact. Nuclear thermal propulsion systems have about 10 times more power density than a traditional light water reactor.

Nuclear propulsion could have a leg up on chemical propulsion for a few reasons.

Nuclear propulsion would expel propellant from the engine’s nozzle very quickly, generating high thrust. This high thrust allows the rocket to accelerate faster.

These systems also have a high specific impulse. Specific impulse measures how efficiently the propellant is used to generate thrust. Nuclear thermal propulsion systems have roughly twice the specific impulse of chemical rockets, which means they could cut the travel time by a factor of 2.

Nuclear thermal propulsion history

For decades, the U.S. government has funded the development of nuclear thermal propulsion technology. Between 1955 and 1973, programs at NASA, General Electric and Argonne National Laboratories produced and ground-tested 20 nuclear thermal propulsion engines.

But these pre-1973 designs relied on highly enriched uranium fuel. This fuel is no longer used because of its proliferation dangers, or dangers that have to do with the spread of nuclear material and technology.

The Global Threat Reduction Initiative, launched by the Department of Energy and National Nuclear Security Administration, aims to convert many of the research reactors employing highly enriched uranium fuel to high-assay, low-enriched uranium, or HALEU, fuel.

High-assay, low- enriched uranium fuel has less material capable of undergoing a fission reaction, compared with highly enriched uranium fuel. So, the rockets needs to have more HALEU fuel loaded on, which makes the engine heavier. To solve this issue, researchers are looking into special materials that would use fuel more efficiently in these reactors.

NASA and the DARPA’s Demonstration Rocket for Agile Cislunar Operations, or DRACO, program intends to use this high-assay, low-enriched uranium fuel in its nuclear thermal propulsion engine. The program plans to launch its rocket in 2027.

As part of the DRACO program, the aerospace company Lockheed Martin has partnered with BWX Technologies to develop the reactor and fuel designs.

The nuclear thermal propulsion engines in development by these groups will need to comply with specific performance and safety standards. They’ll need to have a core that can operate for the duration of the mission and perform the necessary maneuvers for a fast trip to Mars.

Ideally, the engine should be able to produce high specific impulse, while also satisfying the high thrust and low engine mass requirements.

Ongoing research

Before engineers can design an engine that satisfies all these standards, they need to start with models and simulations. These models help researchers, such as those in my group, understand how the engine would handle starting up and shutting down. These are operations that require quick, massive temperature and pressure changes.

The nuclear thermal propulsion engine will differ from all existing fission power systems, so engineers will need to build software tools that work with this new engine.

My group designs and analyzes nuclear thermal propulsion reactors using models. We model these complex reactor systems to see how things such as temperature changes may affect the reactor and the rocket’s safety. But simulating these effects can take a lot of expensive computing power.

We’ve been working to develop new computational tools that model how these reactors act while they’re starting up and operated without using as much computing power.

My colleagues and I hope this research can one day help develop models that could autonomously control the rocket. Läs mer…

Citrus trees showing natural tolerance to citrus greening disease host bacteria that produce novel antimicrobials that can be used to fight off the disease, our recent study shows. We found the trees at an organic farm in Clermont, Florida.

Citrus greening disease – known more formally as Huanglongbing, or HLB, is caused by the bacterium Candidatus Liberibacter asiaticus. It is spread by an insect called the Asian citrus psyllid. There is no known cure for the disease.

We are Florida-based researchers who study sustainable farming practices, a discipline also known as agroecology. Our team has isolated these antimicrobial compounds in the lab and is now working to test them with the goal of producing an effective treatment for HLB.

Why it matters

HLB has dealt a massive blow to Florida’s iconic citrus industry.

Since citrus greening disease was first detected in the state in 2005, Florida citrus production is down by more than 92%. The disease is just one factor. Others include hurricanes and freezes.

Infected trees produce fewer fruit. The fruit that does grow is partially green, smaller, shaped irregularly and bitter tasting. It may drop from the trees before ripening. Leaves may show blotchy mottling.

According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the 2022-2023 growing season was the least productive since 1936. Smaller crops lead to higher prices on oranges, tangerines, grapefruits, lemons and limes.

Pomelo tree leaves with symptoms of citrus greening.
Conor Wolfe, CC BY-ND

Management of HLB is daunting. Growers currently rely on pesticides to control the psyllid and antibiotics like oxytetracycline in an attempt to control HLB. These treatments are expensive and may pose health and environmental risks. The need for development of effective treatments to control HLB is evident.

How we did our work

Like humans, plants host diverse communities of microorganisms both inside and outside, representing the plant microbiome.

Endophytes – beneficial microorganisms living inside plants – play an important role in nutrient intake, disease and pest resistance, and adaptation to environmental stress.

In a search for treatments against HLB, we looked to endophytes of survivor citrus trees – in other words, trees that are HLB positive but showed only mild symptoms and continue to bear fruit. By studying 342 endophytes of survivor trees, we discovered five bacterial endophytes capable of producing novel antimicrobials.

The HLB bacteria cannot be grown on laboratory culture media like agar or broth. So, we used live bacterial cells present in the ground tissue samples of infected psyllids to test the antimicrobial compounds in the lab. These studies revealed that the antimicrobial compounds were highly effective at killing the live cells of citrus greening pathogen in this controlled environment. The antimicrobials can be mixed with water and were found to be effective at low concentrations.

What’s still not known

Preliminary results from our ongoing work indicate that multiple antimicrobial compounds are present in the bacterial culture extract. This is a positive sign because the antimicrobial compounds may be found to attack pathogenic bacteria in several different ways. If that’s the case, it will help minimize the development of resistance in the same way a variety of antibiotics are useful to human doctors.

One of our next steps will be to evaluate selected compounds against HLB, using infected citrus roots under laboratory conditions and infected citrus plants under greenhouse conditions, to test whether the plants will absorb these antimicrobial compounds through their leaves or roots. This work will be conducted in collaboration with scientists from Texas A&M University and the University of Florida.

What’s next

Further research will focus on methods to increase the production of purified antimicrobial compound in order for it to be evaluated in the field. To help get the technology to growers faster, we may look for partnerships with interested commercial biopesticide companies to help with product development.

Our work has taken on new urgency due to emerging psyllid-transmitted diseases that infect potato, tomato and carrot crops in the U.S. that are caused by closely related bacterial pathogens.

The Research Brief is a short take on interesting academic work. Läs mer…