Förordning (2023:727) om statligt stöd till färjetrafik till och från Gotland

sfs 2023:2023:727 
 
/Träder i kraft I:2023-12-15/
1 § I denna förordning finns bestämmelser om statligt stöd
till företag som bedriver reguljär färjetrafik mellan Gotland
och det svenska fastlandet.

Syftet med stödet är att mildra de effekter på frakt- och
biljettpriser som är en 2023-11-30

Läs mer…

Förordning (2008:1002) med instruktion för Myndigheten för samhällsskydd och beredskap

sfs 2008:2008:1002 
t.o.m. SFS 2023:582  
Uppgifter

Verksamhetsområde

1 § Myndigheten för samhällsskydd och beredskap har ansvar för
frågor om skydd mot olyckor, krisberedskap och civilt försvar,
i den utsträckning inte någon annan myndighet har ansvaret.
Ansvaret avser åtgärder före, under och efter en 2008-11-20

Läs mer…

The Swedes defy Elon Musk and bring Tesla to a standstill.

The Swedes have brought Tesla to a standstill. Billionaire Elon Musk’s company refuses to negotiate with the Swedish union over wages and working conditions. As a result, 120 Tesla mechanics went on strike. Workers in transportation, postal services, cleaning, and other industries quickly joined the strike. Now, the strike could potentially spread to other European […]

The post The Swedes defy Elon Musk and bring Tesla to a standstill. appeared first on scoop.me.

Läs mer…

Santos, now booted from the House, got elected as a master of duplicity — here’s how it worked

U.S. Rep. George Santos, a Republican from New York, was expelled on Dec. 1, 2023 from Congress for doing what most people think all politicians do all the time: lying.

Santos lied about his religion, marital status, business background, grandparents, college, high school, sports-playing, income and campaign donation expenditures.

Santos’ fellow members of Congress – a professional class stereotypically considered by the public to be littered with serial liars – apparently consider Santos peerless and are kicking him out of their midst on a 311-114 vote, with two members voting present.

How could a politician engage in such large-scale deception and get elected? What could stop it from happening again, as politicians seem to be growing more unapologetically deceptive while evading voters’ scrutiny?

Santos’ success demonstrates a mastery of something more than just pathological lying. He managed to campaign in a district close to the media microscope of New York City, in one of the richest districts in the state, and get elected and stay in office for a year, despite making a mockery of any semblance of honesty.

I am a scholar of political deception. Experiments I conducted have revealed how the trustworthiness of politicians is judged almost entirely from perceptions of their demeanor, not the words they utter.

Politicians lie, as this compilation shows.

Misleading with a smile

I have found that voters are drawn in by politicians’ demeanor cues, which are forms of body language and nonverbal communication that signal honesty or dishonesty and yet have no relationship to actual honesty. For example, looking nervous and fidgety or appearing confident and composed are demeanor cues, which give impressions of a politician’s sincerity and believability. Someone’s demeanor cues might signal that they are trustworthy when they’re actually lying, or could signal lying in someone who is actually telling the truth.

The most authoritative index of demeanor cues that affect people’s perceptions of honesty and deception was developed by Tim Levine, a professor of communication at the University of Alabama, Birmingham. Demeanor cues that convey sincerity and honesty include appearing confident and composed; having a pleasant, friendly, engaged and involved interaction style; and giving plausible explanations.

The insincere/dishonest demeanor cues include avoiding eye contact, appearing hesitant and slow in providing answers, vocal uncertainty in tone of voice, excessive fidgeting with hands or foot movements, and appearing tense, nervous or anxious.

Empirical research has long revealed that voters are overwhelmingly influenced by politicians’ nonverbal communication. In one experiment, participants were shown 10-second clips of unfamiliar gubernatorial debates. The participants were asked to predict who won the election.

Participants who saw muted 10-second clips – making their judgments solely on nonverbal cues – were able to predict which candidate would go on to win. But those who watched the video with the sound were no better at picking the winner than if they picked randomly without ever watching or listening to anything. Voters make their judgments of a politician’s competence, it turns out, based on a 1-second glance at the politician’s face.

Another study also found that politicians’ facial expressions have the power to move us, literally: People watching clips of Ronald Reagan looking friendly adjusted their facial muscles accordingly and mimicked his smile, and people watching clips of Reagan looking angry tended to furrow their brow, too.

How Santos does it

Santos speaks with certitude. He has a charming, friendly and interactive manner – all sincere demeanor cues. He makes intense eye contact without fidgeting. He dresses well and is pleasant looking.

He was able to make up lies out of whole cloth and have them believed – a feat rarely accomplished by liars. He exudes confidence.

Santos dresses with sartorial elegance. He wears chic eyeglasses and sunglasses, accessorized with bright but not tacky jewelry. All this is complemented by one of his signature fleeces or sweaters, typically worn over a collared dress shirt and under a smart jacket. Santos even bought his campaign staff Brooks Brothers shirts to wear.

In my experiments, which have shown that voters base their judgment of politicians’ trustworthiness almost entirely from perceptions of demeanor, I found that Republicans are especially susceptible to demeanor cues. Republican voters will disbelieve their own honest politician if they perceive that the politician’s demeanor is insincere. But they will believe their own politician if they perceive sincerity.

Santos’ believable demeanor follows in the lineage of other con artists who could deceive absurdly yet adroitly. Disgraced financier Bernie Madoff dressed well, looked dignified, acted friendly and cordial, and his resting face was a smiling expression. The Fyre Festival fraudster Billy McFarland also had a resting face that was a smiling, aw-shucks expression, and acted harmless and friendly.

And Elizabeth Holmes of Theranos – who became the youngest female billionaire in history – faked a deep voice, walked upright with perfect posture, smiled and conveyed unrelenting confident poise, and maintained an unblinking gaze. All this enabled her to tell lies to some of the richest, most accomplished, intelligent titans of industry.

Madoff, McFarland and Holmes could look people in the eye and steal their money – swindling largely through the same sorts of demeanor cues that Santos exhibits.

McFarland, Holmes and Santos have the ability to smile with their upper teeth showing while they are answering tough questions in interviews, which research shows exudes trustworthiness.

Republican candidate George Santos, left, fist-bumps campaign volunteer John Maccarone while campaigning on Nov. 5, 2022, in Glen Cove, N.Y.
AP Photo/Mary Altaffer

Fool me once …

Just because someone speaks confidently, dresses well and acts friendly does not mean the person is honest. Pay attention to what people say – the content of their verbal messaging.

Don’t fall prey to body language or seemingly sincere behavioral impressions, which actually have no correlation to actual truthfulness. As my research has shown, the appearance of sincerity is misleading. It is a myth that eye contact means someone is telling you the truth and that a roving gaze or elevated blinking means they are lying.

Some people just look honest but they are pulling the proverbial wool over your eyes. Some people look sketchy and appear unbelievable, but what they say is truthful.

Santos’ disgrace is a teachable moment for citizens. As the proverb goes: Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. Läs mer…

Santos expelled from House not because of what he said but how he said it

U.S. Rep. George Santos, a Republican from New York, was expelled on Dec. 1, 2023 from Congress for doing what most people think all politicians do all the time: lying.

Santos lied about his religion, marital status, business background, grandparents, college, high school, sports-playing, income and campaign donation expenditures.

Santos’ fellow members of Congress – a professional class stereotypically considered by the public to be littered with serial liars – apparently consider Santos peerless and are kicking him out of their midst on a 311-114 vote, with two members voting present.

How could a politician engage in such large-scale deception and get elected? What could stop it from happening again, as politicians seem to be growing more unapologetically deceptive while evading voters’ scrutiny?

Santos’ success demonstrates a mastery of something more than just pathological lying. He managed to campaign in a district close to the media microscope of New York City, in one of the richest districts in the state, and get elected and stay in office for a year, despite making a mockery of any semblance of honesty.

I am a scholar of political deception. Experiments I conducted have revealed how the trustworthiness of politicians is judged almost entirely from perceptions of their demeanor, not the words they utter.

Politicians lie, as this compilation shows.

Misleading with a smile

I have found that voters are drawn in by politicians’ demeanor cues, which are forms of body language and nonverbal communication that signal honesty or dishonesty and yet have no relationship to actual honesty. For example, looking nervous and fidgety or appearing confident and composed are demeanor cues, which give impressions of a politician’s sincerity and believability. Someone’s demeanor cues might signal that they are trustworthy when they’re actually lying, or could signal lying in someone who is actually telling the truth.

The most authoritative index of demeanor cues that affect people’s perceptions of honesty and deception was developed by Tim Levine, a professor of communication at the University of Alabama, Birmingham. Demeanor cues that convey sincerity and honesty include appearing confident and composed; having a pleasant, friendly, engaged and involved interaction style; and giving plausible explanations.

The insincere/dishonest demeanor cues include avoiding eye contact, appearing hesitant and slow in providing answers, vocal uncertainty in tone of voice, excessive fidgeting with hands or foot movements, and appearing tense, nervous or anxious.

Empirical research has long revealed that voters are overwhelmingly influenced by politicians’ nonverbal communication. In one experiment, participants were shown 10-second clips of unfamiliar gubernatorial debates. The participants were asked to predict who won the election.

Participants who saw muted 10-second clips – making their judgments solely on nonverbal cues – were able to predict which candidate would go on to win. But those who watched the video with the sound were no better at picking the winner than if they picked randomly without ever watching or listening to anything. Voters make their judgments of a politician’s competence, it turns out, based on a 1-second glance at the politician’s face.

Another study also found that politicians’ facial expressions have the power to move us, literally: People watching clips of Ronald Reagan looking friendly adjusted their facial muscles accordingly and mimicked his smile, and people watching clips of Reagan looking angry tended to furrow their brow, too.

How Santos does it

Santos speaks with certitude. He has a charming, friendly and interactive manner – all sincere demeanor cues. He makes intense eye contact without fidgeting. He dresses well and is pleasant looking.

He was able to make up lies out of whole cloth and have them believed – a feat rarely accomplished by liars. He exudes confidence.

Santos dresses with sartorial elegance. He wears chic eyeglasses and sunglasses, accessorized with bright but not tacky jewelry. All this is complemented by one of his signature fleeces or sweaters, typically worn over a collared dress shirt and under a smart jacket. Santos even bought his campaign staff Brooks Brothers shirts to wear.

In my experiments, which have shown that voters base their judgment of politicians’ trustworthiness almost entirely from perceptions of demeanor, I found that Republicans are especially susceptible to demeanor cues. Republican voters will disbelieve their own honest politician if they perceive that the politician’s demeanor is insincere. But they will believe their own politician if they perceive sincerity.

Santos’ believable demeanor follows in the lineage of other con artists who could deceive absurdly yet adroitly. Disgraced financier Bernie Madoff dressed well, looked dignified, acted friendly and cordial, and his resting face was a smiling expression. The Fyre Festival fraudster Billy McFarland also had a resting face that was a smiling, aw-shucks expression, and acted harmless and friendly.

And Elizabeth Holmes of Theranos – who became the youngest female billionaire in history – faked a deep voice, walked upright with perfect posture, smiled and conveyed unrelenting confident poise, and maintained an unblinking gaze. All this enabled her to tell lies to some of the richest, most accomplished, intelligent titans of industry.

Madoff, McFarland and Holmes could look people in the eye and steal their money – swindling largely through the same sorts of demeanor cues that Santos exhibits.

McFarland, Holmes and Santos have the ability to smile with their upper teeth showing while they are answering tough questions in interviews, which research shows exudes trustworthiness.

Republican candidate George Santos, left, fist-bumps campaign volunteer John Maccarone while campaigning on Nov. 5, 2022, in Glen Cove, N.Y.
AP Photo/Mary Altaffer

Fool me once …

Just because someone speaks confidently, dresses well and acts friendly does not mean the person is honest. Pay attention to what people say – the content of their verbal messaging.

Don’t fall prey to body language or seemingly sincere behavioral impressions, which actually have no correlation to actual truthfulness. As my research has shown, the appearance of sincerity is misleading. It is a myth that eye contact means someone is telling you the truth and that a roving gaze or elevated blinking means they are lying.

Some people just look honest but they are pulling the proverbial wool over your eyes. Some people look sketchy and appear unbelievable, but what they say is truthful.

Santos’ disgrace is a teachable moment for citizens. As the proverb goes: Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. Läs mer…

Argentina’s Brexit: why new president Milei is threatening to pull out of South America’s common market

Javier Milei, who was elected as Argentina’s new president on November 19, has promised to withdraw from the South American “common market”, Mercosur.

This decision could have significant economic and social repercussions for Argentina, potentially similar to when the UK pulled out of the EU. Mercosur has some similarities to the EU . For instance, nationals of nine South American countries (Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Paraguay and Uruguay) enjoy the right to enter, reside and work in all of the above countries.

Those rights are enshrined in the Mercosur Residence Agreements, which were adopted in 2002 and came into force in 2009. Between 2009 and 2021, over 3.6 million South Americans obtained residence permits allowing them to live in other countries through the Mercosur agreements, according to the International Organization for Migration.

Argentina played a crucial role in the adoption of these agreements. They resulted from an Argentinian proposal to establish a permanent mechanism for citizens of Mercosur countries to gain access to legal residence in other nations. For the past 20 years, Argentina has also played a leading role in regional migration policy.

Its 2004 migration law, which has been praised by the UN as a model, has had significant influence on migration law in other countries in the region.

Mercosur was established in 1991. Every country in the region is either a full or an associate member state. It seeks to deepen economic and trade integration among its members, to grow cooperation on social policies and serve as a common platform for global geopolitics to create a common approach to some international issues, such as migration and trade.

Mercosur and the EU have also been negotiating a trade agreement for years, but it is not yet clear if it will be ratified.

Read more:
New Argentinian president Javier Milei promises to ’take a chainsaw’ to country’s crippled economy

Why pull out?

Against this backdrop, it is worth considering the motivations for Milei’s proposal to leave Mercosur, its possible repercussions and the procedure that would need to be followed.

Milei, a self-proclaimed anarcho-capitalist libertarian, who advocates for minimal state intervention and the adoption of the US dollar as Argentina’s currency, has proposed Argentina leave international and intergovernmental organisations. These include the Brics (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) community, which it was invited to join by 2024, and the Union of South American Nations (Unasur), which it rejoined in 2023.

According to Milei, neither the state, nor supranational and regional organisations, should interfere with free trade. For this reason, Milei described Mercosur as a hindrance.

Argentina would face three significant challenges, if it were to leave. First, Mercosur has provided stability in the region and a platform for Argentina to voice its ideas, interests and demands internationally. Leaving the organisation would, therefore, weaken Argentina’s ability to address shared regional and global challenges, isolating the country from the rest of the region and the world.

Second, this could affect the functioning of the residence agreements mentioned earlier, making it harder for Argentinians to work in other South American countries and vice versa. It is worth noting that around 80% of migrants to Argentina originate from other parts of South America. In addition to that, more than 300,000 Argentinians live in other South American countries and their rights could be affected by such a decision.

Third, this would also have a cost for the Argentine economy. Mercosur accounts for almost 25% of all Argentine exports and intra-regional trade has been growing in the last years .

Argentina’s trade partners, by country

Finally, Article 21 of Mercosur’s 1991 founding treaty requires any state wanting to leave the agreement to formally communicate it to the other member states 60 days before leaving. As well as this, Argentina’s constitution requires an absolute majority vote in both the Congress and Senate to make such a move.

It is worth mentioning that the president-elect’s party and allies do not even hold a simple majority, in either of the chambers, the deputies and Senate. However, the president does have, on many issues, the legal power to bypass Congress by issuing executive decrees.

In the days after the election, Milei and his newly appointed ministers softened some of the more radical proposals in their agenda. For instance, the minister of foreign affairs designate Diana Mondino recently declared that Argentina “will not obstruct the Mercosur-EU Agreement” and will maintain good relations with Brazil, Argentina’s main trade partner and the most significant economy in South America. But Mondino has confirmed that Argentina will not join Brics.

This suggests that Milei may have to tone down his more radical ideas in line with political and legal realities. Clearly they were intended to attract an electorate that is deeply unhappy with the previous government’s economic mismanagement and the current economic crisis.

The rest of South America will be closely monitoring the political developments of a country that still leads regional agendas on current issues of global relevance, such as climate change and migration, to see which way it will turn. Läs mer…

Why some people from the north of England end up leaving everything to King Charles when they die

What connects an ex-miner and lifelong republican, who once manned the protest lines at Orgreave, with King Charles III? The surprising answer, as the Guardian reported, is that the ex-miner’s estate now forms part of a fund which generates private income for the monarch.

The reason is the legal principle of bona vacantia. This is loosely translated as “ownerless goods” and refers to a process through which the estates of people who die without heirs in England and Wales are claimed by the crown.

The principle of bona vacantia operates when a person dies in England and Wales without leaving a valid will disposing of all of their assets and there is no heir to their estate under the intestacy rules. These rules, set out in the Administration of Estates Act 1925, set out the classes of people who can inherit the property of an intestate (or partially intestate) person.

These classes are ranked and then gone through in order to see if an heir can be found. In broad terms, no surviving relative further away from the deceased than a first cousin can inherit. Remoter family members are generally excluded. When no one closer than a cousin can be found, the unclaimed part of the estate (the bona vacantia) passes to, and is collected by, the crown.

Most of these estates are claimed by the Treasury solicitor, the government legal department which handles the administration of the estate and then passes the surplus to the government for its general expenditure.

However, the estates of people who died resident in the historic County Palatine of Lancaster (including greater Manchester, Merseyside, Lancashire and the Furness area of Cumbria) pass under the bona vacantia rules to the Duke of Lancaster. That is, the current reigning monarch, King Charles.

The estates collected by the Duchy of Lancaster are incorporated into its private estate of land, property and assets, with the function of providing private income for the monarch.

This is an extremely ancient power, dating back to a 1377 grant made by Edward III to John of Gaunt when he was Duke of Lancaster. Today, it is part of the Administration of Estates Act 1925.

A similar rule applies to the estates of those dying within the county of Cornwall. These estates pass to the Duke of Cornwall, who is also the Prince of Wales, Charles’s son, William.

Although many of these unclaimed estates are not large, the aggregate sums received by the duchies are considerable. The Guardian reports that over the past ten years, the Duchy of Lancaster alone has collected around £61.8 million.

The Treasury solicitor and the two duchies will advertise for any entitled relatives to come forward, and will make transfers to those entitled under the heirship rules. All three also have a discretion to make payments from the estate to those who may have a legitimate claim on it otherwise than through heirship, particularly under the provisions of the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975.

These include carers for the deceased person, or cohabitants. Some of the remainder is used for investment and to maintain duchy assets, and the surplus given to charity.

A controversial change apparently benefits King Charles

Many people are broadly aware, and broadly satisfied, that if they die without heirs, their property will go to the state in the form of the crown. However, when the Law Commission last consulted on the principles of intestacy and bona vacantia in 2011, some public unease about the point was detected.

A significant minority thought that the rule was anachronistic and that unclaimed assets should be given directly to charity. The Law Commission did not take this up, in part because the latest available reports and accounts at that time showed that the net proceeds of bona vacantia in both duchies passed entirely to charity.

Property in an area of the Duchy of Lancaster.
Shutterstock/Fencewood Studio

The Guardian’s reporting has now revealed that there was an apparent significant shift in the administration of the Duchy of Lancaster’s funds in 2020. One particularly controversial change has been the alleged use of money to improve historic property within the Duchy’s portfolio, which is then rented out for profit.

The paper has also raised questions about how much of the duchy’s income is currently being paid to charitable causes, as this appears to have dropped.

There is the further question of whether it is fair, or relevant, that the estates of those who happen to die resident in Lancashire or Cornwall should become private assets of the monarch or his heir, while those who die resident elsewhere have their estates passed to the British state more generally.

Whatever the resolution of these issues may be, there is a clear message for those who strongly wish their estates to go to charity and not to the crown: make a will.

All wills can be drafted so that if there are no living heirs left, the estate can be given to a charity of the deceased’s choice as a fallback. Many charities offer will writing services which can help. When it comes to legacies, it’s essential to plan ahead. Läs mer…

Who is still getting HIV in America? Medication is only half the fight – homing in on disparities can help get care to those who need it most

As the globe marks another World AIDS Day on Dec. 1, it’s crucial to both acknowledge the significant strides made in the global battle against HIV and recognize the persistent challenges that remain. While the United States had seen a slow decline in the overall number of new HIV infections from 2017 to 2021, a closer look at the data reveals persistent disparities largely borne by LGBTQ people and communities of color.

As a social epidemiologist who proudly identifies as a gay Latino, I have a vested interest both personally and professionally in understanding and addressing the HIV disparities my communities face. It’s disheartening to realize that, despite available medical advances that can end the AIDS epidemic, these resources aren’t reaching those who need them the most.

Tools in the HIV prevention arsenal

When HIV/AIDS first emerged in the U.S. in the 1980s, condoms were the only prevention strategy available other than behavioral changes like abstinence. Since then, the development of effective medications has made it possible to live with HIV.

In the 1990s, researchers adopted the model of “treatment as prevention,” which recognized that an HIV-positive person with a reduced viral load from taking their antiviral therapy medications had a lower likelihood of passing the virus to their sexual partners. This messaging was changed in recent years to “undetectable = untransmittable,” or U=U, when a landmark study concluded that people living with HIV who are virally suppressed, or undetectable, through medications are not able to pass the virus on to a sexual partner.

People who have undetectable levels of the virus are deemed to have untransmittable HIV.

In 2005, researchers introduced non-occupational postexposure prophylaxis, or nPEP, which aimed to prevent infection in someone exposed to HIV by initiating antiviral therapy.

In 2012, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the first preexposure prophylaxis, or PrEP drug, which is an antiviral therapy that someone who has not been exposed to HIV takes daily to prevent infection. In 2021, the FDA approved the use of a long-acting, injectable form of PrEP, providing an alternative to daily pills.

While medical advancements have enhanced the options to prevent HIV, many aren’t reaching the people they are intended to treat. Of the estimated 1.2 million people eligible for PrEP in the U.S., only 30% received a prescription in 2021.

Racial disparities

Gay and bisexual men continue to comprise around two-thirds of new HIV infections in the U.S. Transgender people, people who inject drugs and sex workers also have disproportionate new infection rates. But cases are not distributed evenly by race.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s 2021 HIV Surveillance Report on groups at risk of HIV in 13 U.S. cities found that nearly 80% of gay and bisexual men engaged in condomless anal sex, with higher rates among white men than among both Black and Latino men.

However, between 2015 and 2019, white gay and bisexual men experienced a 17% decrease in HIV cases. Black and Latino gay and bisexual men experienced no significant reductions. This is likely due to disparities in access to HIV prevention medication. Among those who were HIV negative, only a little over 40% had used PrEP in the past 12 months, with white men reporting higher use than both Black and Latino men. Among those who were HIV positive, 95% were actively using antiviral therapy, and there was little variation by race.

The first PrEP drug was approved in 2012, but access remains uneven across the U.S.
Sara Jurado/E+ via Getty Images

Factors such as stigma, lack of access to and mistrust in health care, socioeconomic status, and cultural nuances that restrict access to PrEP likely contribute to the unchanging HIV burden Black and Latino men, trans people and people experiencing homelessness face.

Closing the PrEP access gap

A recent systematic review of 42 different interventions to promote PrEP among gay and bisexual men in the U.S. found that the most promising involve addressing various social and environmental factors that restrict access and adherence.

Tackling access barriers at the community and health care levels can enhance public health initiatives to expand PrEP access, including addressing issues like stigma and medical mistrust. This can help effectively promote PrEP use among Black and Latino gay and bisexual men and reduce racial disparities in HIV infections.

It is also important to note that while HIV disproportionately affects certain groups, people having heterosexual sex are still at risk and need to be part of the HIV prevention solution.

World AIDS Day serves as a poignant reminder that the fight against HIV is not only a global endeavor but also one that requires a nuanced understanding of the unique challenges different communities face. Addressing disparities and tailoring interventions can help move humanity closer to a world where HIV is no longer a pervasive threat. Läs mer…

Colonized countries rarely ask for redress over past wrongs − the reasons can be complex

The king of the Netherlands, Willem-Alexander, apologized in July 2023 for his ancestors’ role in the colonial slave trade.

He is not alone in expressing remorse for past wrongs. In 2021, France returned 26 works of art seized by French colonial soldiers in Africa – the largest restitution France has ever made to a former colony. In the same year, Germany officially apologized for its 1904-08 genocide of the Herero and Nama people of Namibia and paid reparations.

This is, some political scientists have observed, the “age of apology” for past wrongs. Reams of articles, particularly in Western media, are devoted to former colonizer countries and whether they have enacted redress – returned museum artifacts, paid reparations or apologized for past wrongs.

Yet this is rarely the result of official requests. In fact, very few former colonies have officially – that is, government to government – pressed perpetrators to redress past injustices.

My analysis found that governments in 78% of such cases have not asked to be compensated for historical acts of injustice against them. As a scholar of international relations who has studied the effect of colonialism on the present-day foreign policy of countries affected, I found this puzzling. Why don’t more victim states press for intercountry redress?

The answer lies in the fact that colonial pasts and atoning for injustices are controversial – not just in what were perpetrator countries, but also in their victims. What to ask redress for, from whom and for whom are complicated questions with no easy answers. And there are often divergent narratives within victim countries about how to view past colonial history, further hampering redress.

Focus on perpetrator country

There is a disproportionate amount of attention paid to whether perpetrator countries – that is, former colonizers who established extractive and exploitative governments in colony states – offer redress. They are lauded when they enact redress and shamed when they do not.

The processes pertaining to redress within victim countries – the former colonies – gets less attention. This, I believe, has the effect of making these countries peripheral to a conversation in which they should be central.

This matters – success or failure of redress can depend on whether victim countries officially push for it.

Take the experiences of two formerly colonized countries that I studied in depth in relation to the question of redress: India and Namibia.

The Indian experience: Different narratives

It’s difficult for a country, particularly a poor developing nation, to take a former colonizer, usually a much richer country, to the International Court of Justice to ask for redress for the entire experience of colonialism.

But most former colonies have never officially asked for some form of redress – be it apology, reparations or restitution, even for specific acts of injustice.

India is an example of the difficulty in building consensus for official redress. Take the Jallianwala Bagh massacre of 1919, in which British troops killed hundreds of peaceful protesters, including women and children.

The Indian government has never officially asked for an apology from the United Kingdom over the incident.

Part of the problem is different groups within India have different narratives about the 200 years of British colonial rule. No one disputes that the Raj was exploitative and violent. But which acts of violence to emphasize? How much responsibility should be assigned to the British? And should any positive attributes of the Raj be highlighted? These are all debated.

Such points of divergence are reflected in India’s federal and state-issued history textbooks, according to my analysis.

The bloody Partition of India in 1947 and the subsequent creation of Pakistan, for example, are blamed on the British in federal and many state textbooks. But it merits just a small paragraph in Gujarati textbooks, where it is blamed entirely on the Muslim League, the founding party of Pakistan. In the state of Tamil Nadu, Partition is mentioned without any description of either the horrors that followed or where responsibility lay.

Different narratives also appear in the Indian Parliament. When the issue of redress came up in 1997 – the 50th year of Indian independence and just before Queen Elizabeth II visited India – politicians agreed that India’s emergence from what politician Somnath Chatterjee described as “a strangulating and dehumanizing slavery under a colonial imperialist power” was worth celebrating. But on the issue of whether Elizabeth should apologize for the Jallianwala Bagh massacre, there was little agreement. Calls from some politicians for an apology were drowned out by others who jabbed at the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party, pointing out its allies had never apologized for assassinating Mahatma Gandhi.

As of this writing, the U.K. has expressed regret for the massacre but never apologized, infuriating many Indians.

The long journey for Namibian redress

Namibia is an uncommon case of redress where the government has officially pushed for an apology and reparations from its former colonizer, Germany. But even then it was a painful, complex and time-consuming process dogged by many of the themes that have prevented India and others from seeking formal redress.

Between 1884 and 1919, Namibia was a German colony, with some communities systematically dispossessed of their traditional lands. In 1904, one of these communities, the Herero, rebelled, followed in 1905 by the Nama. In response, German troops slaughtered thousands in a bloodbath that is today widely acknowledged to be a genocide. Survivors, including women and children, were herded into horrific concentration camps and subjected to forced labor and medical experiments.

Captured Herero fighters in 1904.
Ullstein Bild via Getty Images

The struggle to hold Germany accountable began decades ago, with individuals from the Herero and Nama communities calling for accountability and reparations. Germany rebuffed them repeatedly, precisely because the Namibian government did not take up their call. Only in 2015, after the Namibian government officially requested redress, did Germany acquiesce.

In May 2021, Germany finally agreed to recognize the genocide, apologize and establish a fund of US$1.35 billion toward reconstruction and development projects in Herero- and Nama-dominated areas.

Why did it take so long? For the Herero and Nama, the genocide and loss of traditional lands were always forefront. But for others in Namibia – notably, the dominant political party, the South West Africa People’s Organization, or SWAPO, which consists largely of members of the Ovambo ethnic community – uniting Namibians to come together in a national, anti-colonial struggle for independence was deemed more important than focusing on the wrongs suffered by any one community.

After independence, the ruling SWAPO prioritized nation-building and unity and cultivated ties with the German government, hoping for foreign aid and economic development. Complicating matters, the Ovambo had not lost their own traditional lands to colonialism in the same way as the Herero and Nama.

For years, government-approved school history textbooks used in Namibian schools reflected the SWAPO narrative. One Ovambo former school history teacher told me that Namibian children learned about the “war of national resistance” and how exploitative colonialism had necessitated that war. But the word “genocide” was never used, and there were no mentions of the suffering of affected communities.

Around 2010, Namibian activists, NGO workers and government officials from all communities began to search for common ground to reconcile the different narratives. Some attempts failed. A 2014 museum exhibition on the genocide collapsed after its financier, the Finnish embassy, withdrew funding – allegedly under pressure, one Namibian expert told me, from the German government. But others succeeded. The National Archives of Namibia launched a project to collect academic papers on divergent narratives of the liberation struggle and colonial history.

As reconciling narratives progressed, history textbooks were revised to honor not just SWAPO’s version of history, but also highlight the brutalities suffered by the Herero and Nama. They included frank discussions of genocide and colonial atrocities. Against this backdrop, the Namibian government officially initiated a request for redress from Germany. Both governments appointed teams to find a resolution, resulting in the 2021 reparation fund.

Redress between countries is rare. Successful redress even more so. But the example of Namibia shows that it can be done when the governments of victim countries initiate redress. By focusing only on perpetrator states, we miss an opportunity to examine their victims as agents of change, and thereby perpetuate redress as an unusual phenomenon. Läs mer…

The news is fading from sight on big social media platforms – where does that leave journalism?

According to a recent survey by the News Media Association, 90% of editors in the United Kingdom “believe that Google and Meta pose an existential threat to journalism”.

Why the pessimism? Because being in the news business but relying on social media platforms and search engines has become very risky. The big tech companies are de-prioritising news content, making it harder for citizens to find verified information produced by journalists.

It is arguable the threat isn’t necessarily existential. News companies are also leaving social media platforms, potentially claiming back some control and building resilience into their revenue models.

Leading New Zealand digital publisher Stuff, for example, recently decided to stop posting its content on X (formerly Twitter), “except stories that are of urgent public interest – such as health and safety emergencies”.

But as I describe in my new book, From Paper to Platform, news organisations that continue to conduct their news business via these platforms will have limited control. As social media companies and search engines change the terms of their services at will, news companies are left to deal with the consequences.

Read more:
Breaking news: making Google and Facebook pay NZ media for content could deliver less than bargained for

Risks of ‘platformed publishing’

Platforms such as Google and Facebook play various roles in the modern media ecosystem. Consequently, their actions create multiple risk points for news media. The impacts differ, of course, depending on each news company’s own goals and strategies.

As one Scandinavian study of media risk management noted, “platforms pose a competitive threat to news organisations”. But that threat varies, depending on how news organisations respond, and how reliant they are on those platforms for audience reach or funding.

News companies distribute their content on platforms such as Facebook or X because that’s where their audience is – at least a large proportion of it, anyway. But news is poorly promoted by those platforms, and Google and Facebook admit news makes up only a tiny fraction of their overall content.

Read more:
Even experts struggle to tell which social media posts are evidence-based. So, what do we do?

Furthermore, the visibility of news within these platforms is rapidly declining. The result is described by the authors of The Power of Platforms as “platformed publishing”:

a situation where some news organisations have almost no control over the distribution of their journalism because they publish primarily to platforms defined by coding technologies, business models, and cultural conventions over which they have little influence.

As a recent Wired article observed, “Facebook is done with news”: its parent company Meta is “killing off the News tab in France, Germany and the UK”, having already temporarily blocked access to news content in Australia in 2021 and more recently in Canada where the blackout continues.

Instagram’s new Threads app (also owned by Meta) has no appetite for hard news, Google’s search results offer less news, and X has stopped showing news headlines and links on tweets.

No appetite for news: diminishing returns on all the big social media platforms.
Getty Images

Weakening democracy

The New Zealand news publishers I spoke to generally believe platform algorithms don’t prioritise factual news content. As one observed, the “platforms have the control over algorithms”. Another noted how platforms “can bury or promote you as they like, their tweaks in algorithms determine your fate”.

This has real consequences beyond the impact on media metrics and advertising revenue. Platforms have an influence on democratic processes – including elections.

The same News Media Association survey quoted at the start of this article also reveals 77% of UK editors believe platform antics such as news blackouts will weaken democratic societies.

When people cannot access (or have limited access to) verified and trusted news, other things fill the void. The Israel-Gaza conflict, to take just the most recent example, has seen an increase in disinformation on X – to the extent the European Union’s digital rights chief warned owner Elon Musk he was potentially breaching EU law.

Read more:
41 US states are suing Meta for getting teens hooked on social media. Here’s what to expect next

Terms of payment

There has been some cause for optimism recently due to Google and Facebook becoming funders of journalism and news, having been either mandated or coerced to pay publishers for their content.

Australia was first to introduce a law requiring platforms to compensate news companies, followed by Canada. The previous New Zealand government introduced a similar bill to parliament, but there is no certainty it will become law under the new administration.

In Australia and Canada, the platforms implemented news “blackouts” in their services as a response to these laws, effectively making news invisible to their users.

Read more:
Why Google and Meta owe news publishers much more than you think – and billions more than they’d like to admit

And while these platform payments have brought additional revenue to many news publishers, the terms of the payments are not public. It’s hard to estimate how much Google and Facebook have actually paid for news content, but it has been estimated in Australia to be A$200 million annually.

If that sounds substantial, consider this: a recent US study suggested Google and Meta should be paying far more than they do, estimating Facebook owes news publishers US$1.9 billion and Google US$10-12 billion annually.

It’s hard to see those platforms agreeing to such figures, or increasing any payments for news. More likely, the payments will gradually dwindle as Google and Meta continue prioritising other services and products over news.

Newsrooms will likely have to say goodbye to platformed publishing and social media news distribution. It’s clear it isn’t working as well as many hoped, and it will almost certainly not work in the long term. Läs mer…