Month: April 2024

Abstract

In the post-Covid world, our online personae have become increasingly essential mechanisms for presenting ourselves to the world. Simultaneously, new techniques for hacking online personae have become more widely available, easier to use, and more convincing. This combination, of greater reliance on online personae and easier malicious hacking, has created serious societal problems. Techniques for training users to detect false content have proved ineffective. Unfortunately, legal remedies for dealing with hacked personae have also been inadequate. Consequently, the only remaining alternative is to limit the posting of false content. In this discussion paper, we provide an overview of online personae hacking. As potential remedies, we propose to redesign search engine and social media algorithms allowing platforms to detect and restrict harmful false content and a new fundamental right for the EU Charter that would provide legal justification for platforms to protect online reputations. For those platforms that might choose not to protect online reputations, this new right would require that they do so.

Abstract

The weaponizing of scientific expertise to oppose regulation has been extensively studied. However, the relevant studies, belonging to the emerging discipline of agnotology, remain focused on the analysis of empirical corruption: of misinformation, doubt mongering, and other practices that cynically deploy expertise to render audiences ignorant of empirical facts. This paper explores the wrongful deployment of expertise beyond empirical corruption. To do so, I develop a broader framework of morally subversive expertise, building on recent work in political philosophy (Howard, 2016). Expertise is subversive if it sets up its audience to fail morally, either intentionally or negligently. I distinguish three modes of subversive expertise: empirical subversion (the focus of agnotology), normative subversion and motivational subversion. Drawing on these distinctions, I offer a revisionary account of the Trump Administration’s regulatory science as a case study. I show that the Trump Administration’s use of expertise to dismantle climate regulation, contra the standard charge, cannot be explained using the resources of agnotology alone: the Administration produced highly reliable climate assessments, detailing the risks of climate change, candidly admitting the harms of its proposed policies, and still successfully deployed these findings to justify massive climate deregulation. The lesson of the analysis is that dismissing the expertise that underpins climate deregulation as empirically corrupt ‘anti-science’ both obscures its actual role in the politics of climate change and understates its wrongfulness: it misses the breadth of the assault on moral agency that sustains climate injustice.

Abstract

In the age of misinformation, conspiracy theories can have far-reaching consequences for individuals and society. Social and emotional experiences throughout the life course, such as loneliness, may be associated with a tendency to hold conspiracist worldviews. Here, we present results from a population-based sample of Norwegians followed for almost three decades, from adolescence into midlife (N = 2215). We examine participants’ life trajectories of loneliness using latent growth curve modeling. We show that people reporting high levels of loneliness in adolescence, and those who experience increasing loneliness over the life course, are more likely to endorse conspiracy worldviews in midlife.

Abstract

Introduction

The emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic has served as a call for enhanced global cooperation and a more robust pandemic preparedness and response framework. As a result of this pressing demand, dialogues were initiated to establish a pandemic treaty designed to foster a synchronized global strategy for addressing forthcoming health emergencies. In this review, we discussed the main obstacles to this treaty.

Results

Among several challenges facing the pandemic treaty, we highlighted (1) global cooperation and political will, (2) equity in access to resources and treatments, (3) sustainable financing, (4) compliance and enforcement mechanisms, (5) sovereignty concerns, and (6) data sharing and transparency.

Conclusion

Navigating the hurdles facing the development of the pandemic treaty requires concerted efforts, diplomatic finesse, and a shared commitment to global solidarity. Addressing challenges in global cooperation, equitable access, transparency, compliance, financing, and sovereignty is essential for forging a comprehensive and effective framework for pandemic preparedness and response on the global stage.