Johansen.se

Are you angry about politics right now? Seething? You’re not alone. According to the Mood of the Nation Poll by researchers at Penn State, 9 in 10 Americans can name a recent news event or something about American politics that made them angry.

Political scientists Steven Webster, Elizabeth Connors and I have investigated what happens to people’s social networks – their friends, family and neighbors – when partisan anger takes over. For example, suppose your neighbor is a member of the opposite political party. You’ve always watered their plants when they go on vacation. Given the news these days and how angry you’re feeling, what will you say when they ask for help during their next trip?

We found that when someone is angry with the opposite party, they avoid people with those views. That can include not assisting neighbors with various tasks, avoiding social gatherings attended by people from the other side, and refusing to date people who vote differently. It means being disappointed if your son or daughter marries a supporter of the opposing party, and even severing close friendships or distancing yourself from close relatives.

We see that political anger disrupts ordinary life – coffee with a friend – as well as more major life decisions. Political anger breaks our social networks.

People rely on their relationships to understand our world – and to vote. The more we isolate ourselves from people who see things differently, the easier it is to misunderstand them, pushing us to separate even more.

Stereotype vs. reality

During the Obama administration, my collaborators and I asked a nationally representative sample of voters to describe their stereotypes about the opposite party. Our questions were intended to tap into perceptions of the other side’s lifestyles and cultural values, in addition to policy attitudes.

First, we wanted to establish each side’s actual views. Our 2012-2016 study asked around 1,300 Americans whether they agreed with statements that are often associated with one party or the other – including creationism, guns, taxes and eco-friendliness.

For example, 42.5% of all Republicans we surveyed agreed with the statement that “this country would be safer if every law-abiding citizen possessed a firearm,” versus 25.1% of independents and 14.2% of Democrats. Meanwhile, 38.7% of Democrats agreed that “this country would be better if every citizen drove an electric car,” compared with 22% of independents and 11.4% of Republicans.

Which party do you associate with these cars?
3alexd/iStock via Getty Images Plus

Two months later, we went back to the same voters and asked them a different question: What percentage of Democrats and Republicans did they think would agree with these statements?

We saw dramatic evidence of stereotypes. For example, only 19% of Democrats agreed that all Americans should pay more taxes, but more than 80% of Republicans believed the percentage to be higher. The same pattern occurred with electric cars and firearms. Just over 42% of Republicans agreed that all “law-abiding” citizens should have a gun, but the typical Democrat believed the percentage to be 60%-80%.

Americans do not understand each other across the red-blue divide. Importantly, respondents with more ideologically extreme views themselves had less accurate perceptions of the other party.

Avoiding the Joneses

The more extreme our beliefs become, the harder it will be to understand our neighbors.

Suppose you are a Republican. You learn that your Democratic neighbors believe that everyone should drive an electric car, marijuana should be legal in all states, and universal health care should be available to all citizens. Or suppose you are a Democrat, and you learn that your Republican neighbors believe that humans and dinosaurs walked the Earth at the same time, that elementary school students should be required to recite the Pledge of Allegiance every morning, and that a fence should be built between the U.S. and Mexico.

Would you want to be friends?

These hypothetical neighbors have stereotypical beliefs – and most Americans say they do not want those neighbors in their social networks. Specifically, according to our 2023 study, they reported not wanting to become friends, not having this neighbor over for a family meal, and not feeling comfortable allowing their children to play with the neighbor’s kids, among other activities.

Stereotypes don’t just drive individual people and families apart; they make neighborhoods less cohesive. We ascribe stereotypical beliefs to people who are members of the opposite party – and then we react to these stereotypes, not to our neighbors themselves.

You’re still neighbors, no matter how you vote.
monkeybusinessimages/iStock via Getty Images Plus

Social citizens

Cutting off those in-person relationships isn’t just a problem for safety and friendliness around the block. It’s a problem for democracy because Americans need relationships with people whose politics are different than their own.

A majority of Americans have social circles that are politically homogeneous. Even in 2020, 53% of Republicans said that their network was exclusively composed of Donald Trump supporters, and 55% of Democrats said that their network was exclusively composed of Joe Biden supporters.

In her book “Through the Grapevine,” political scientist Taylor Carlson documents that approximately 1 in 3 American voters mostly learn about politics from socially transmitted information: news they get from talking with friends or scrolling on social media. Relying on these sources is particularly problematic in social networks that are homogeneous, as exposure to information from someone in your own party can lead people to have more extreme positions. Carlson’s work highlights that voters who rely on friends to shape their views rely upon a resource that is heavily biased.

In my own book “The Social Citizen,” I investigated the influence peers have on political decisions, from voting and donating to identifying with a political party. For example, if a neighbor knocks on your door and asks you to turn out to vote, you are 4%-11% more likely to go cast a ballot than if a stranger knocked on your door.

Democracy in action

What can we do to remedy the fractures? We need to understand each other.

The U.S. has a long tradition of political dialogue. Indeed, after a brutal election tested their friendship, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson did not exchange letters for 11 years. But the pair resumed their correspondence in 1812 with Adams’ statement – later echoed by Jefferson – “You and I, ought not to die, before We have explained ourselves to each other.”

What Adams and Jefferson understood in the 19th century still applies to the divisions in American society today: Reconciliation requires understanding. These conversations are frequently painful and hard; data scientists have noted that Thanksgiving dinners with guests who cross party lines are frequently shorter. But as my own research shows, we are most able to persuade people with whom we have the closest ties.

Democracy challenges us to participate in more ways than simply by voting. It challenges everyone to understand those around us and seek what is in the collective best interest.

And we have the most influence over people in our social networks. So that friend you’re really angry with about their politics? It’s time to give them a call and have a conversation. Läs mer…

When companies advertise job openings, they often use buzzwords like “ambitious” and “self-reliant” to describe their ideal candidate. These traits sound appealing — what hiring manager wouldn’t want a driven employee?

But there’s a catch. In my latest study, published in the journal Management Science with co-authors Scott Jackson and Nick Seybert, I found that these terms may attract job applicants with more narcissistic tendencies.

As behavioral researchers in accounting, we are interested in executives who bend the rules. We decided to study job postings after noticing that the language used to describe an “ideal candidate” often included traits linked to narcissism. For example, narcissists tend to see themselves as highly creative and persuasive. Prior research also shows that narcissistic employees are more innovative and willing to take risks to get the success and admiration they crave, even if it means bending the rules.

Based on these observations, we compiled two sets of terms commonly used in job postings. We call the two sets “rule-follower” and “rule-bender” language.

Some examples of rule-bender language include “develops creative and innovative solutions to problems,” “communicates in a tactical and persuasive manner” and “thinks outside the box.” In contrast, the rule-follower language includes terms like “relies on time-tested solutions to problems,” “communicates in a straightforward and accurate manner” and “thinks methodically.”

Through a series of experiments, we found that rule-bender language attracts individuals with higher levels of narcissism for accounting-specific jobs, as well as other industries. To measure narcissism, we used a personality assessment that asks people to choose whether they identify more with more narcissistic statements like, “I always know what I am doing,” or less narcissistic statements like “Sometimes I am not sure of what I am doing.”

We also found that recruiters are more likely to use rule-bender terms when hiring for highly innovative, high-growth companies. For accounting positions, recruiters are more likely to use such terms when aggressive financial reporting could benefit the firm.

Why it matters

Companies write job postings carefully in hopes of attracting the ideal candidate. However, they may unknowingly attract and select narcissistic candidates whose goals and ethics might not align with a company’s values or long-term success. Research shows that narcissistic employees are more likely to behave unethically, potentially leading to legal consequences.

While narcissistic traits can lead to negative outcomes, we aren’t saying that companies should avoid attracting narcissistic applicants altogether. Consider a company hiring a salesperson. A firm can benefit from a salesperson who is persuasive, who “thinks outside the box” and who is “results-oriented.” In contrast, a company hiring an accountant or compliance officer would likely benefit from someone who “thinks methodically” and “communicates in a straightforward and accurate manner.”

Bending the rules is of particular concern in accounting. A significant amount of research examines how accounting managers sometimes bend rules or massage the numbers to achieve earnings targets. This “earnings management” can misrepresent the company’s true financial position.

In fact, my co-author Nick Seybert is currently working on a paper whose data suggests rule-bender language in accounting job postings predicts rule-bending in financial reporting.

Our current findings shed light on the importance of carefully crafting job posting language. Recruiting professionals may instinctively use rule-bender language to try to attract someone who seems like a good fit. If companies are concerned about hiring narcissists, they may want to clearly communicate their ethical values and needs while crafting a job posting, or avoid rule-bender language entirely.

What still isn’t known

While we find that professional recruiters are using language that attracts narcissists, it is unclear whether this is intentional.

Additionally, we are unsure what really drives rule-bending in a company. Rule-bending could happen due to attracting and hiring more narcissistic candidates, or it could be because of a company’s culture – or a combination of both.

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

When someone sees something that isn’t there, people often refer to the experience as a hallucination. Hallucinations occur when your sensory perception does not correspond to external stimuli.

Technologies that rely on artificial intelligence can have hallucinations, too.

When an algorithmic system generates information that seems plausible but is actually inaccurate or misleading, computer scientists call it an AI hallucination. Researchers have found these behaviors in different types of AI systems, from chatbots such as ChatGPT to image generators such as Dall-E to autonomous vehicles. We are information science researchers who have studied hallucinations in AI speech recognition systems.

Wherever AI systems are used in daily life, their hallucinations can pose risks. Some may be minor – when a chatbot gives the wrong answer to a simple question, the user may end up ill-informed. But in other cases, the stakes are much higher. From courtrooms where AI software is used to make sentencing decisions to health insurance companies that use algorithms to determine a patient’s eligibility for coverage, AI hallucinations can have life-altering consequences. They can even be life-threatening: Autonomous vehicles use AI to detect obstacles, other vehicles and pedestrians.

Making it up

Hallucinations and their effects depend on the type of AI system. With large language models – the underlying technology of AI chatbots – hallucinations are pieces of information that sound convincing but are incorrect, made up or irrelevant. An AI chatbot might create a reference to a scientific article that doesn’t exist or provide a historical fact that is simply wrong, yet make it sound believable.

In a 2023 court case, for example, a New York attorney submitted a legal brief that he had written with the help of ChatGPT. A discerning judge later noticed that the brief cited a case that ChatGPT had made up. This could lead to different outcomes in courtrooms if humans were not able to detect the hallucinated piece of information.

With AI tools that can recognize objects in images, hallucinations occur when the AI generates captions that are not faithful to the provided image. Imagine asking a system to list objects in an image that only includes a woman from the chest up talking on a phone and receiving a response that says a woman talking on a phone while sitting on a bench. This inaccurate information could lead to different consequences in contexts where accuracy is critical.

What causes hallucinations

Engineers build AI systems by gathering massive amounts of data and feeding it into a computational system that detects patterns in the data. The system develops methods for responding to questions or performing tasks based on those patterns.

Supply an AI system with 1,000 photos of different breeds of dogs, labeled accordingly, and the system will soon learn to detect the difference between a poodle and a golden retriever. But feed it a photo of a blueberry muffin and, as machine learning researchers have shown, it may tell you that the muffin is a chihuahua.

Object recognition AIs can have trouble distinguishing between chihuahuas and blueberry muffins and between sheepdogs and mops.
Shenkman et al, CC BY

When a system doesn’t understand the question or the information that it is presented with, it may hallucinate. Hallucinations often occur when the model fills in gaps based on similar contexts from its training data, or when it is built using biased or incomplete training data. This leads to incorrect guesses, as in the case of the mislabeled blueberry muffin.

It’s important to distinguish between AI hallucinations and intentionally creative AI outputs. When an AI system is asked to be creative – like when writing a story or generating artistic images – its novel outputs are expected and desired. Hallucinations, on the other hand, occur when an AI system is asked to provide factual information or perform specific tasks but instead generates incorrect or misleading content while presenting it as accurate.

The key difference lies in the context and purpose: Creativity is appropriate for artistic tasks, while hallucinations are problematic when accuracy and reliability are required.

To address these issues, companies have suggested using high-quality training data and limiting AI responses to follow certain guidelines. Nevertheless, these issues may persist in popular AI tools.

Large language models hallucinate in several ways.

What’s at risk

The impact of an output such as calling a blueberry muffin a chihuahua may seem trivial, but consider the different kinds of technologies that use image recognition systems: An autonomous vehicle that fails to identify objects could lead to a fatal traffic accident. An autonomous military drone that misidentifies a target could put civilians’ lives in danger.

For AI tools that provide automatic speech recognition, hallucinations are AI transcriptions that include words or phrases that were never actually spoken. This is more likely to occur in noisy environments, where an AI system may end up adding new or irrelevant words in an attempt to decipher background noise such as a passing truck or a crying infant.

As these systems become more regularly integrated into health care, social service and legal settings, hallucinations in automatic speech recognition could lead to inaccurate clinical or legal outcomes that harm patients, criminal defendants or families in need of social support.

Check AI’s work

Regardless of AI companies’ efforts to mitigate hallucinations, users should stay vigilant and question AI outputs, especially when they are used in contexts that require precision and accuracy. Double-checking AI-generated information with trusted sources, consulting experts when necessary, and recognizing the limitations of these tools are essential steps for minimizing their risks. Läs mer…

When bots – automated agents that perform tasks on behalf of humans – become more active in online communities, it has profound effects on how humans interact with each other on those platforms. Bots designed to help users see more content increase the number of people users connect with but also decrease the interactions between people.

In online communities, replies, likes and comments between users form a network of interactions. Analysis of these social networks shows patterns, such as who is connecting and who is popular or important in the community.

My colleagues Nicholas Berente and Hani Safadi and I analyzed the network structure of communities on Reddit, called subreddits, that had seen increased use of bots from 2005 to 2019. Our goal was to see whether the presence of bots affected how the human community members interacted with each other.

Based on recent research, we knew that we were looking for two types of bots: reflexive and supervisory bots.

Reflexive bots are coded to plug into a community’s application programming interface. Based on how they are coded, they either post content based on specific rules or search for specific content and post a reply based on their preprogrammed rules. Supervisory bots have more permissions in the community and can delete or edit posts or even ban users based on preprogrammed community moderation rules.

We found that when there is more reflexive bot activity in a community – more bots posting content – there are more human-to-human connections. This means that the reflexive bots posting content enable people to find novel content and engage with other users they otherwise would not have seen. However, this high bot activity leads to less back-and-forth discussion between users. If a user posts on a subreddit, it is more likely that a bot will reply or interject itself into the conversation instead of two human users engaging in a meaningful back-and-forth discussion.

When there are supervisory bots moderating a community, we see less centralization in the human social network. This means that those key people who were important to the community have fewer connections than before. Without supervisory bots, these members would be the ones who establish and enforce community norms. With supervisory bots, this is less necessary, and those human members are less central to the community.

Social media bots explained.

Bots are prevalent across online communities, and they can process vast amounts of data very quickly, which means they can react and respond to many more posts than humans can.

What’s more, as generative AI improves, people could use it to create more and more sophisticated bot accounts, and the platforms could use it to coordinate content moderation. Tech companies investing heavily in generative AI technologies could also deploy generative AI bots to increase engagement on their platforms.

Our study can help users and community leaders understand the impact of these bots on their communities. It can also help community moderators understand the impact of enabling automated moderation through supervisory bots.

Bots are rigid because of their rules-based nature, but they are likely to become more advanced as they incorporate new technologies such as generative AI. More research will be needed to understand how complex generative AI bots affect human-to-human interactions in online communities.

At the same time, automating platform moderation can lead to strange effects, because bots are more rigid in their enforcement and cannot deal with potential issues on a case-by-case basis. How generative AI changes moderator bots remains to be seen.

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

When I taught research methods to undergraduates, I would start by asking whether anyone in the class had $20. Though harder to come by thanks to digital payment options, inevitably someone would produce a $20 bill. I would then ask whether they knew how the bill came to look the way it does. Students would take guesses – often rooted in history and counterfeiting concerns.

While valid, the larger font and picture designs that came about in the 1990s and early 2000s were also the result of research intended to make the bills more accessible for the 3.5 million Americans with low vision. One of those Americans with low vision was a researcher on the team designing the new bill, experimental psychologist Gordon Legge.

These changes made it easier for those low-vision Americans, their families and others around the world to read and use American dollars. In other countries, bills and coins come in different sizes that pertain to their value, making them much easier for people with low vision and the blind to use. Legge’s research saved Americans the cost of having to completely redesign the currency to come in different sizes.

My goal in talking about the currency redesign with my students was to show them how research has shaped their lives, often in ways they didn’t even realize.

Now, following President Donald Trump’s executive order on federal projects related to DEIA – diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility – many research initiatives similar to the bill redesign project will lose funding.

As a social psychologist, some of the studies I’ve worked on would be considered DEIA work. Social psychology as a field grew, in part, during World War II as researchers tried to understand bias-motivated atrocities such as the Holocaust.

DEIA initiatives are projects that seek to reduce discrimination and promote equal opportunities and equal access in multiple spaces such as school and workplaces, as well as in legal, housing and medical systems.

While frequently focused on those who have faced long-standing barriers to these resources – for example, racial and ethnic minorities and people with disabilities – the results of research related to DEIA are often applied to help all people achieve their potential.

The Trump administration’s list of DEIA-related terms is so broad that it’s flagging non-DEIA related work for potential termination. I’ve heard many scientists discuss how their programs of research have been wrongfully included in the anti-DEIA sweeps because they use terms such as “biodiversity.”

However, research that would be considered DEIA work has made influential contributions to society over the past few decades – it raises the question of whether any flagging is actually right. The backlash to anti-DEIA research seems to have started with criticism of DEI-related human resources training in workplaces. But the word list goes well beyond what would appear in HR training.

DEIA research identifies the problems and proposes the solutions. Solutions such as translation services for the hearing impaired, parental leave for mothers and fathers, pay equity, time off for religious holidays and lactation rooms for nursing mothers all stem from what could be labeled DEIA research and advocacy.

For instance, lactation rooms came about based on research into what working mothers needed to ease their return to work after pregnancy. This included research into breast pumps and even architectural research on how to best design these rooms.

DEIA contributions

DEIA work is nothing new – just the label is. After all, it was DEIA research in the 1950s that psychologists Kenneth and Mamie Clark presented to the Supreme Court to argue that school segregation harmed children, leading to the banning of the policy.

Kenneth and Mamie Clark, left, with their two children. Research by the Clarks led to desegregation policies in school.
Charlotte Brooks for Look Magazine and Brooks Archive

This work continues today as new DEIA research reveals that schools are often still racially homogenous. That means many American students still go to schools where the student bodies are primarily white or primarily racial minorities. However, the reasons for these divides are no longer due to segregation being the law.

In the 1970s, it was DEIA research that inspired the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 and led to the creation of special education practices for neurodiverse students. These practices have improved educational outcomes for students with dyslexia, ADHD, autism and a variety of other neurodiversities.

And DEIA research is continuing to review and improve these practices today.

Starting in the 1980s, it was also DEIA research that led to HIV/AIDS, a virus disproportionately affecting the LGBTQ+ community, no longer being a death sentence. Doctors now have a drug that prevents HIV, including preventing the transmission of HIV from mother to infant.

Just today, I received a news alert about scientific breakthroughs in the neurological study of postpartum depression. Because “women” and “pregnant people” are on the list of terms flagged as DEIA-related, studies on postpartum depression could be considered DEIA.

DEIA science on DEIA science

It is DEIA science that has demonstrated how diverse research teams promote innovative performance. This research would suggest that America’s diversity may very well be one of the key elements shaping its prosperity.

Some might say “of course DEIA research will show DEIA works,” but it is also DEIA research that critiques the limitations of training to reduce bias – such as human resources workshops intended to teach workers about inclusive language, cultural sensitivity or implicit bias. Other non-DEIA HR training also faces criticism.

Scientists discuss these limitations, and the scientific process is constantly self-correcting as researchers search for better solutions. Recommendations about better training are proposed based on new research.

For instance, racial colorblindness is an ideology that grew out of the civil rights era and a desire to treat individuals equally regardless of race. However, it has led to some problems where people say they ignore race when really they don’t. For instance, in one study looking at race and dating preferences, white people endorsing a colorblind ideology were actually more likely to say they wouldn’t date a Black person than those who didn’t endorse colorblindness.

Many experts say that colorblindness is a flawed approach to talking about and understanding race and discrimination.

Colorblindness can also make people feel uncomfortable bringing up race in any context. One study shows how young people, who are not yet wary of identifying people by race, can outperform adults, who avoid race, during a game of Guess Who.

These studies are just some examples of DEIA science that showed the colorblindness approach is a mixed bag at best. Other times, it is harmful for minority groups and majority groups alike, or even backfires, making people more, not less, discriminatory and uncomfortable.

Alleged alternatives to DEIA

Despite its shortcomings, many prominent figures in the anti-DEIA movement have seemingly endorsed colorblindness.

For example, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott created executive order GA-55 to end DEIA policies and institute a “color-blind” approach instead. Texas public universities had to eliminate DEIA offices and practices but not legacy admissions and scholarships that studies show disproportionately benefit white students.

In his second inaugural address, Trump promised that his administration would “forge a society that is colorblind and merit-based.” While a meritocracy may sound good on paper, DEIA research has suggested that meritocracies don’t work in the current society.

Meritocracies assume a level playing field and can ignore disparities, such as wealth, that may afford some more opportunities than others – social mobility between income levels is rare and can take generations.

Hard work or talent does not compensate for imbalances in society as much as many people would like to believe.

Where we stand

Despite the anti-DEIA rhetoric present in American discourse, most Americans do not have negative attitudes toward DEIA; 52% even still think DEIA in the workplace is good. Most Americans, including white people, men and Republicans, also do not report having been harmed by DEIA policies. Overall, studies report that Americans value inclusivity.

Ultimately, blanket bans on anything remotely DEIA harm advancement across scientific disciplines. The disparities DEIA research examines still exist – in courts, in schools, in jobs, in health, in housing and in violent victimization rates.

Stopping cancer research because cancer prevention training doesn’t always work and sometimes backfires won’t stop cancer. Ignoring disparities will not make them go away. DEIA-related science is an ingrained part of the scientific enterprise, and cutting its funding could mean missing out on important breakthroughs. Läs mer…

President Donald Trump gave no specific reason for firing Gen. Charles Q. Brown Jr. as the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff less than halfway through Brown’s four-year term in office.

Nor did he give an explanation for similarly ousting other senior military leaders, including the only women ever to lead the Navy and the Coast Guard, as well as the military’s top three lawyers – the judge advocates general of the Army, Navy and Air Force.

The president is the commander-in-chief of the U.S. armed forces. But since the days of George Washington, the military has been dedicated to serving the nation, not a specific person or political agenda. I know this because I served 36 years in the U.S. Air Force before retiring as a major general. Even now, as a lecturer in history, national security and constitutional law, I know that nonpartisanship is central to the military’s primary mission of defending the country.

Trump’s actions could raise concerns about whether he is trying to change those centuries of precedent.

If so, military personnel at all levels would face a crucial question: Would they stand up for the military’s independent role in maintaining the integrity and stability of American democracy or follow the president’s orders – even if those orders crossed a line that made them illegal or unconstitutional?

After the American Revolution, George Washington resigned his military commission and returned to civilian life.
Herman Bencke via Library of Congress

Political neutrality from the start

Washington and other U.S. founders were very aware that a powerful military could overthrow the government or be subjected to political whims as different parties or factions controlled the presidency or Congress, so they thought long and hard about the role of the militia and the use of military power.

Julius Caesar, who used his army to seize power in ancient Rome, was a cautionary tale. So was Oliver Cromwell’s use of his military power in the English Civil War to execute King Charles I and rule England.

One of Washington’s most significant contributions to the apolitical tradition of the military was his resignation as commander-in-chief of the Continental Army after the American Revolution officially ended, in 1783. By voluntarily giving up his military power and returning to civilian life, the man who would become the nation’s first president demonstrated his commitment to civilian control of a military grounded in allegiance to the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness, not allegiance to any one party, faction or person.

Washington’s act set a powerful example for future generations. A few years later, the founders embedded civilian control over the military in the U.S. Constitution. Article I, Section 8 gives Congress the power to declare war and fund armies, while Article II, Section 2 designates the president as the commander-in-chief of the military.

This check and balance ensures the military remains neutral and subordinate to elected leaders. It also solidifies the allegiance of military leaders to a principled document, not to the ebbs and flows of politics.

As part of their training, U.S. military members learn about their duty to obey lawful, constitutional orders.
Michael S. Williamson/The Washington Post via Getty Images

Training and response to orders

Polling consistently shows that the American people trust the military more than any other element of the U.S. government. In part that trust comes from the military’s professional dedication to political neutrality, which includes training its personnel to uphold values like duty, honor and integrity.

Military members up and down the ranks take their allegiance to the Constitution seriously. At the beginning of their service, at every reenlistment and usually during promotion ceremonies, all military members – officers and enlisted – swear to support and defend the Constitution. The enlisted oath also includes a promise to follow the lawful orders of the president and of the officers appointed above them.

This foundational oath ensures that if members of the military receive orders that they believe are questionable, they will not follow those orders blindly. They are taught throughout their career – during basic training, officer candidate training and in recurring sessions through the years – to seek clarification. If necessary, they are told to challenge those orders through their chain of command, or through attorneys associated with their units, or by contacting their branch’s inspector general.

Depending on their ranks, military members’ responses to questionable orders can vary. Senior officers, who have extensive experience and higher levels of responsibility, have the authority and the duty to ensure that any orders they follow or pass down are lawful and in line with the Constitution. When evaluating uncertain orders or navigating unclear situations, they often consult with legal advisers, discuss the implications with peers and thoroughly analyze the situation before taking action.

Junior officers and senior enlisted personnel often find themselves in positions where they must make quick decisions based on the information available to them. While they are trained to follow orders, they are also encouraged to use their judgment and seek guidance when they believe an order to be unlawful – including getting advice from people with direct access to attorneys.

Junior enlisted personnel, who make up more than 40% of the military force, are also taught the importance of the legality and constitutionality of orders. They have the right to seek clarification if they believe an order is unlawful.

Even so, their training focuses heavily on discipline and obedience. This can make it challenging for them to question orders, especially in high-pressure situations.

Members of the U.S. military swear an oath to the Constitution.
Ethan Miller/Getty Images

Ultimate responsibility

The responsibility of scrutinizing orders falls on senior military leaders – admirals and generals, colonels and Navy captains. Junior officers and senior enlisted and junior enlisted personnel rely on their leaders to navigate the complexities of politics and ensure orders they receive are lawful and focused on national defense, not politics.

If senior military leaders fail in their responsibility, chaos could ensue: Units may end up following conflicting orders or ignoring directives altogether. This can lead to a breakdown in command and control, with some units acting independently or based on politically motivated directives. This would be a dangerous shift, making the military extremely vulnerable to operational failures and enemy attack.

President Lyndon Johnson, center, and Gen. William Westmoreland visit troops in South Vietnam in 1967.
AP Photo

Such a situation has never happened in the history of the U.S. military. But some events have come close to crossing the line. For instance, during the Vietnam War, President Lyndon Johnson was determined to demonstrate American strength and resolve, famously stating, “I will not lose in Vietnam.” His pressure landed on the shoulders of Gen. William Westmoreland.

Westmoreland responded by publicizing the numbers of enemy personnel killed in battle, attempting to show that U.S. efforts were reducing the size of opposing forces. But historians have found that this emphasis lacked clear military objectives, meaning troops faced confusion and contradictory orders. The price was a longer war, and more deaths for Americans and for Vietnamese civilians.

Ultimately, Westmoreland was accused of manipulating enemy troop strength estimates to create an impression of progress – in service of Johnson’s political desire to avoid defeat. His decisions did not directly violate the Constitution or U.S. law, but they exemplify how political pressures can adversely influence military strategies, with devastating consequences.

Unbiased sources of information

In addition to senior military leaders’ responsibility to remain apolitical, leaders also have clear responsibilities to the civilians elected and appointed above them.

For example, the president needs factual and unbiased information about the military’s capabilities from the Joint Chiefs of Staff, based on their experience and professional opinions. If advisers are hesitant to speak freely about what is and is not possible in any given situation, and about potential consequences both good and bad, the president will miss out on the kinds of critical insights that shape effective strategies.

The bottom line is that when top military experts give advice and take action influenced by politics, they undermine the centuries-old system of military training and ethics. Some traditions are worth keeping. Läs mer…

Social media platforms tend not to be that bothered by national boundaries.

Take X, for example. Users of what was once called Twitter span the globe, with its 600 millions-plus active accounts dotted across nearly every country. And each of those jurisdictions has its own laws.

But the interests of national regulatory efforts and that of predominantly U.S.-based technology companies often don’t align. While many governments have sought to impose oversight mechanisms to address problems such as disinformation, online extremism and manipulation, these initiatives have been met with corporate resistance, political interference and legal challenges invoking free speech as a shield against regulation.

What is brewing is a global struggle over digital platform governance. And in this battle, U.S. platforms are increasingly leaning on American laws to challenge other nation’s regulations. It is, we believe as experts on digital law – one an executive director of a forum monitoring how countries implement democratic principles – a form of digital imperialism.

A rumble in the tech jungle

The latest manifestation of this phenomenon occurred in February 2025, when new tensions emerged between Brazil’s judiciary and U.S.-based social media platforms.

Trump Media & Technology Group and Rumble filed a lawsuit in the U.S. against Brazilian Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes, challenging his orders to suspend accounts on the two platforms linked to disinformation campaigns in Brazil.

The case follows earlier unsuccessful efforts by Elon Musk’s X to resist similar Brazilian rulings.

Together, the cases exemplify a growing trend in which U.S. political and corporate actors attempt to undermine foreign regulatory authority by pressing the case that domestic U.S. law and corporate protections should take precedence over sovereign policies globally.

From corporate lobbying to lawfare

At the core of the dispute is Allan dos Santos, a right-wing Brazilian influencer and fugitive from justice who fled to the U.S. in 2021 after De Moraes ordered his preventive arrest for allegedly coordinating disinformation networks and inciting violence.

Dos Santos has continued his online activities abroad. Brazil’s extradition requests have gone unanswered due to claims by U.S. authorities that the case involves issues of free speech rather than criminal offenses.

Trump Media and Rumble’s lawsuit attempts to do two things. First, it seeks to frame Brazil’s judicial actions as censorship rather than oversight. And second, it seeks to portray the Brazilian court action as territorial overreach.

Their position is that as the target of the action was in the U.S., they are subject to U.S. free speech protections under the First Amendment. The fact that the subject of the ban was Brazilian and is accused of spreading disinformation and hate in Brazil should not, they argue, matter.

For now, U.S. courts agree. In late February, a Florida-based judge ruled that Rumble and Trump Media need not comply with the Brazilian order.

Big Tech pushback to regulation

The case signals an important shift in the contest over platform accountability – a move from corporate lobbying and political pressure to direct legal intervention in foreign jurisdictions. U.S. courts are now being used to challenge overseas decisions regarding platform accountability.

The outcome and the broader legal strategy behind the lawsuit could have far-reaching implications not only for Brazil but for any country or region – such as the European Union – attempting to regulate online spaces.

The resistance against digital regulation predates the Trump administration.

In Brazil, efforts to regulate social media platforms have long faced substantial opposition. Big Tech companies – including Google, Meta and X – have used their economic and political influence to lobby against tighter regulation, often framing such policies as a threat to free expression.

In 2020, the Brazilian “Fake News Bill,” which sought to hold platforms accountable for the spread of disinformation, was met with strong opposition from these companies.

Google and Meta launched high-profile campaigns to oppose the bill, warning it would “threaten free speech” and “harm small businesses.” Google placed banners on its Brazilian homepage urging users to reject the legislation, while Meta ran advertisements questioning its implications for the digital economy.

These efforts, alongside lobbying and political resistance, were successful in helping to delay and weaken the regulatory framework.

Mixing corporate and political power

The difference now is that challenges are blurring the line between the corporate and the political.

Trump Media was 53% owned by the U.S. president before he moved his stake into a revocable trust in December 2024. Elon Musk, the free speech fundamentalist owner of X, is a de facto member of the Trump administration.

Their ascent to power has coincided with the First Amendment being wielded as a shield against foreign regulations on digital platforms.

Free speech protections in the U.S. have been applied unequally, allowing authorities to suppress dissent in some cases while shielding hateful speech in others.

This imbalance extends to corporate power, with decades of legal precedent expanding protections for private interests. The case law cemented corporate speech protections, a logic later extended to digital platforms.

U.S. free speech advocates in Big Tech and the U.S. government are seemingly escalating this trend to an even more extreme interpretation: that American free speech arguments can be deployed to resist the regulation of other jurisdictions and challenge foreign legal frameworks.

For instance, in response to the European Union’s Digital Services Act, U.S. Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr, a Trump appointee, expressed concerns that the act could threaten American free speech principles.

Brazilian Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes, who has fought disinformation on tech platforms, attends a session of the country’s high court on Feb. 26.
Ton Molina/NurPhoto via Getty Images

Such an argument may have been fine if the same interpretation of free speech – and its appropriate protections – were universally accepted. But they are not.

The concept of free speech varies significantly across nations and regions.

Countries such as Brazil, Germany, France and others adopt what legal experts refer to as a proportionality-based approach to free speech, balancing it against other fundamental rights such as human dignity, democratic integrity and public order.

Sovereign countries using this approach recognize freedom of expression as a fundamental and preferential right. But they also acknowledge that certain restrictions are necessary to protect democratic institutions, marginalized communities, public health and the informational ecosystem from harms.

While the U.S. imposes some limits on speech – such as defamation laws and protection against incitement to imminent lawless action – the First Amendment is generally far more expansive than in other democracies.

The future of digital governance

The legal battle over platform regulation is not confined to the current battle between U.S.-based platforms and Brazil. The EU’s Digital Services Act and the Online Safety Act in the United Kingdom are other examples of governments trying to assert control over platforms operating within their borders.

As such, the lawsuit by Trump Media and Rumble against the Brazilian Supreme Court signals a critical moment in global geopolitics.

U.S. tech giants, such as Meta, are bending to the free speech winds coming out of the Trump administration. Musk, the owner of X, has given support to far-right groups overseas.

And this overlap in the policy priorities of social media platforms and the political interests of the U.S. administration opens a new era in the deregulation debate in which U.S. free speech absolutists are seeking to establish legal precedents that might challenge the future of other nations’ regulatory efforts.

As countries continue to develop regulatory frameworks for digital governance – for instance, AI regulation imposing stricter governance rules in Brazil and in the EU – the legal, economic and political strategies platforms employ to challenge oversight mechanisms will play a crucial role in determining the future balance between corporate influence and the rule of law. Läs mer…

The persistent challenge of falsified or misrepresented qualifications in South Africa exposes serious shortcomings in recruitment and appointment processes. Although the scale of the problem is difficult to quantify, it’s considered to be reaching “pandemic” levels. It is worse in the public sector.

The problem became so serious that government introduced the National Qualifications Framework Amendment Act in 2019, making it a criminal offence to misrepresent qualifications. It is punishable by up to five years in prison.

Yet the scourge continues, despite severe personal and professional consequences for some.

The alarmingly high number of individuals pretending to be qualified for high-profile positions undermines trust and capability in organisations.

There have been cases involving top executives and directors of parastatals. Some major companies have not been spared.

Once unsuitable people occupy positions of responsibility, it is difficult to remove them. Their performance seldom improves because they lack the foundation.

Their incompetence can affect institutions severely because they can make wrong decisions that result in financial losses. The South African Broadcasting Corporation, for instance, suffered financially due to poor decisions made by unqualified executives.

Read more:
South Africa’s public service: real spending is falling, but demand is growing

Some municipalities with unqualified personnel often hire expensive consultants.

Teachers with fraudulent credentials compromise quality education. This deprives children of opportunities to better their lives.

Unscrupulous individuals have also been caught masquerading as medical doctors, putting lives at risk.

Important infrastructure projects have collapsed owing to fake engineers.

I am a researcher and practitioner of public sector reforms. I also head the National School of Government, which leads the drive to make the country’s public sector professional. I argue that to deter qualifications fraud, the management of human resources in the public sector must be professional.

South Africa can draw lessons from the private sector and other governments.

Loopholes in the system

The National Qualifications Framework Amendment Act is aimed at deterring fraudulent qualifications. Some people have gone to jail for this crime.

But measures to deter and punish it must be complemented by human resources management reforms.

In my view, poor human resource screening processes, inadequate verification systems and ambiguous job descriptions and entry requirements contribute to appointing unsuitable candidates.

The weekly public sector vacancies circular, published by the Department of Public Service and Administration, is a major source of data showing these limitations. It’s full of job advertisements where the minimum qualifications requirements are either too wide or below standard.

Read more:
South Africa’s public service is dysfunctional – the 5 main reasons why

Some of the people who recruit and select staff are negligent. They fail to conduct thorough background checks or to screen applicants properly. This results in the appointment of unqualified and fraudulent candidates.

Learning from the private sector

The private sector, driven by competitive pressures and stakeholder expectations, developed robust systems to ensure the integrity and effectiveness of human resource functions. These systems can guide public sector reforms.

Companies invest in advanced technologies and third-party verification services. They use agencies to check candidates’ fingerprints, verify qualifications, find references, and even do personality profiles.

In contrast, public sector human resources personnel often rely on manual processes. These consume time and are prone to inaccuracies and manipulation. They can also be cumbersome as junior and middle management job advertisements often attract thousands of applicants.

The private sector uses well-defined competency frameworks. These outline the skills, knowledge and experience required to evaluate a candidate.

Read more:
Africa should be building private-public partnerships in education

Many private sector human resources practitioners belong to professional bodies. These enforce ethical standards. They also certify practitioners and promote ongoing professional development.

Businesses also employ licensed and professional human resources practitioners. These are expected to be innovative, productive and ethical, and to act in the best interests of their employers. They can be dismissed if they lose their professional licence. These are guardrails against abuse.

Learning from other governments

India, China, South Korea, Singapore and several European nations have stringent public sector recruitment and selection methods. They emphasise merit and transparency to ensure only qualified and competent people are appointed.

India’s Union Public Service Commission conducts a highly competitive civil services examination to recruit candidates.

China uses the National Civil Service Examination, known as the Guokao. It evaluates candidates’ intellectual aptitude, policy knowledge and professional skills for jobs in government ministries and state-owned enterprises.

South Korea’s Civil Service Examination system is a rigorous process which tests candidates’ analytical and managerial capabilities.

Singapore is known for its efficient government. It employs structured assessment centres, psychometric testing and panel interviews to ensure capable people join the public sector.

Read more:
South Africa has a plan to make its public service professional. It’s time to act on it

To uphold high standards of professionalism and integrity in governance, Germany and France have competitive entrance assessments for civil service roles.

France’s Institut National du Service Public uses stringent entry requirements to prepare candidates for senior public service.

South Africa introduced a pre-entry assessment called Nyukela/Step Up in 2020. It is applicable to public servants and citizens who wish to apply for a position in the senior management service.

Professionalising the public sector

Cabinet approved the National Framework Towards Professionalisation of the Public Sector in October 2022. It aims to tighten pre-entry requirements and carefully screen applicants. This includes verifying qualifications, testing integrity and assessing competence. The framework requires that public sector entities develop detailed job descriptions.

The framework will help block fraud by professionalising human resources, supply chain management and legal services, among others. It will help human resources practitioners improve their competencies and make them part of a wider professional network. This is important for continued professional development.

There will be consequences when officials violate their professional code of ethics. This has worked for lawyers and accountants who are disbarred for ethical and professional breaches.

The framework gives the Public Service Commission a role in recruiting of heads of departments. This step controls entry to top positions in the civil service. The commission will bring two or more subject matter sector experts into the selection panels, making the process more rigorous. Läs mer…

As the United States recalibrates its trade policies to combat what the Trump administration sees as “unfair” treatment by other countries, two significant industries have complained to US regulators about their treatment in Australia.

The tech industry – particularly Big Tech platforms such as Google and Meta – says it is being “coerced” into handing cash to Australian media companies. And the pharmaceutical industry is upset about low prices and delays in getting new treatments into the Australian market.

Why are we hearing about these complaints now? And what will they mean for Australia?

The US Trade Representative requests a pile-on

In February, the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) invited comments from the public to help it review and identify any unfair trade practices by other countries. The call was made “pursuant to the America First Trade Policy Presidential Memorandum and the Presidential Memorandum on Reciprocal Trade and Tariffs”.

The aim was to use this consultation to investigate potential harm to the US from any non-reciprocal trade arrangements. The consultation was designed to help the USTR recommend appropriate actions to remedy any such practices.

Essentially, it was an invitation to complain about any and all countries, including Australia. All the relevant industry associations have taken up this opportunity with a high degree of enthusiasm.

There have been 766 submissions.

Big Tech has complaints

A tech industry group called the Computer and Communications Industry Association (CCIA) made a submission raising concerns about the digital policies of several countries, including Australia.

The submission emphasised policies with what it calls “extractionary and redistributive characteristics” that force one set of market participants to subsidise the economic activities of another.

The association’s Australian concern focuses on the News Media Bargaining Code. This requires tech companies to pay for news that appears on their platforms.

The CCIA characterises the News Bargaining Code as:

a coercive and discriminatory tax that requires US technology companies to subsidise Australian media companies.

The CCIA argued that the financial burden imposed by the code is substantial. It said that two companies (Google and Meta, although the CCIA does not name them) pay A$250 million annually in deals “coerced through the threat of this law”. It also mentioned the planned “news bargaining incentive”, which aims to encourage platforms to do deals with media companies.

Regulation by default

The CCIA is also concerned about changes in competition law that will lead to platforms being regulated by default. That is, like telecommunications and electricity companies, designated platforms will be assumed to have a substantial degree of market power. (This was a finding made by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission in 2019.)

The industry group argued that Australia’s regulatory regime is modelled on the European Union’s Digital Markets Act (DMA). In fact, Australia is likely to look closely at both the EU and UK regimes.

The CCIA says this default regulation would target specified US companies with discriminatory obligations.

However, any business that is “designated” – regardless of its host country – would have these obligations. The proposed approach does not target or discriminate against US businesses.

It is true the proposed approach will have heavy penalties for breach, and the CCIA complains about these “significant fines”. The CCIA correctly identifies that the regulations would empower the government to impose restrictions on how platforms use customers’ data, and whether they can preference their own products.

The CCIA says it is concerned that these measures, like similar ones in other jurisdictions, disproportionately target US companies. It says they would also impose significant compliance costs, and may serve as a backdoor for industrial policy designed to advantage local competitors. They argue that such rules can require changes to operating procedures and services, and that non-compliance can result in hefty fines.

The submission also addresses Australia’s proposed requirements for US online video providers, such as Netflix, to fund the development and production of Australian content, which could require these providers to allocate 10–20% of their local expenditure to Australian content. It does not note that the same is true for Australian streaming platforms.

Big Pharma also has complaints – and a local ally

Big Pharma, via the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) industry association, has also complained about various countries. Gripes about Australia include low prices under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) and delays to approval of new treatments.

Medicines Australia – a local organisation that represents pharmaceutical companies – agrees about the delays, citing a PBS review published last year.

Barriers to trade

The critical submissions should come as no surprise. Any industry group that passes up such a golden opportunity to complain on behalf of its members is arguably not doing its job.

In the case of both Big Tech and Big Pharma, Australia was only one of the targets. Yet the potential impacts are high.

The USTR is looking at treating any regulatory barriers faced by US companies as if they were tariffs. At least one Australian industry association is joining the pile-on.

How will the USTR respond? Given the White House’s current approach to trade, there is a significant risk it will recommend retaliatory tariffs on yet more Australian products. Läs mer…