SIX DEGREES OF SEPARATION
Change Doesn't Happen Overnight, But Research Shows How Social Movements Succeed

(Vlad Tchompalov/Unsplash)
HUMANS

CLARE WATSON
23 JANUARY 2021

One was kickstarted by a school kid and her placard; another took flight after a hashtag went viral. Years later, these powerful social movements – demanding action on climate and racial justice – are in full swing, with millions of people raising their voices, fists, and hand-painted posters in support.


While subsets of communities have raised their voices in protest throughout history, things are different right now – the US hasn't before seen numbers participating like those we're seeing today.

Which has researchers wondering just how 21st-century social movements succeed in creating social change.

Now, a new analysis provides insights from consumer behaviour research suggests the most effective campaigns start small and turn local connections into larger networks through organisation and social influence.

It's pretty clear where movements begin – with a shared concern among supporters for a particular issue coupled with an urgency to make change.

"At their core, social movements advance when people act collectively by rising in solidarity with a shared purpose to address injustice and inequality," the researchers wrote in their paper.

"Yet, we often become aware of these movements only as their work nears completion, when the voices clamouring for social justice reach their peak and the movement has become widespread."

How then do social movements mobilise people in the early days, build a critical mass, sustain momentum, and make meaningful change? How do they turn people's shared concern into solid commitment?

Here, consumer psychology recognises the power of social influence where one person can impact another person's beliefs and behaviours.

In years gone by, historians, sociologists, anthropologists, and political scientists have all weighed in on what makes social movements successful whereas this new analysis looked through the lens of consumer behaviour research to understand why some movements take off when others fizzle out.

The recent research was led by marketing expert Gia Nardini from the University of Denver, Colorado, who has previously examined how successful social entrepreneurs grow their organisations.

It focused on how movements turn 'bystanders' who watch from the sidelines into 'upstanders' who are compelled to contribute, looking specifically at the thundering Black Lives Matter protests.

Their analysis found that successful movements are able to connect people with the cause, and to one another, before assembling a network to expand their reach.

How social movements grow: the ripple effect. (Nardini et al., J Consumer Psychology 2020)

According to the co-founder of the Black Lives Matter movement, Patrisse Cullors, their chapters make these connections by "co-creating with comrades, allies, and family a culture where each person feels seen, heard, and supported" and where "differences and commonalities are respected and celebrated," the researchers noted in their paper.

And then, "By systematically investing in its network – sharing, collaborating, coordinating, and investing resources and knowledge in its grassroots – Black Lives Matter coalesced separate small wins, driven and energized by localized actions, into a nationwide movement," the researchers wrote.


"Individuals who had never participated in protests before and who could never have imagined themselves participating felt compelled to get involved," they added, perhaps because people felt supported to do so or duty-bound by a sense of responsibility.

Looking at consumer behaviour research, the authors also noted how movements must strike the right balance with their emotive messaging, as this helps bystanders get on board.

While anger at injustice motivates some people, others need to hear messages of hope and progress to overcome the existential dread they might feel, for example, facing a frightening future under climate change. Research suggests this approach garners broader social support and spurs action.

Leadership is also a key factor, but the Black Lives Matter movement galvanised supporters in a different way to the American civil rights movement of the 1960s, which rallied behind social activist Martin Luther King, Jr. and other key figures.

Since 2013, the leaders of the Black Lives Matter movement have empowered others to lead their own communities, said Nardini: "They recognize[d] the power of local communities and they empowered those communities."


But change doesn't come overnight, and supporters have got to be in it for the haul. Social movements tend to surge and decline in what social movement scholar Sidney Tarrow calls a 'cycle of protest'.

"It's easy to feel demotivated by a lack of progress or how slow progress is," said Nardini. "I think it's important to recognize how long the process could be or how arduous it might be as well."

"We make the case that you don't necessarily want to go for a policy change right away," said Nardini.

Instead, successful movements motivate people from the bottom up and, as other research has suggested, seek change by lobbying social spheres of society rather than targeting the obvious arms of government.

"In the same way a megaphone amplifies a single voice … social movements channel, focus, and amplify the voices and actions of people at the grassroots level to create social change," the researchers wrote.

It also works well if movements embrace so-called tactical diversity with a spectrum of activities that together appeal to a broader supporter base.

"If you can check these boxes, you have a good chance for social change to succeed," Nardini said.

The research was published in the Journal of Consumer Psychology.

COVID-19 Recovery Plans Must Be Green to Meet Paris Climate Goals, Say Scientists

(Marcin Jozwiak/Unsplash)
ENVIRONMENT

H. DAMON MATTHEWS AND KASIA TOKARSKA, THE CONVERSATION
22 JANUARY 2021

The amount of carbon dioxide that we can still emit while limiting global warming to a given target is called the "remaining carbon budget," and it has become a powerful tool to inform climate policy goals and track progress towards net-zero emissions targets.

This carbon budget is like a fixed financial budget: There is a cap on total allowable expenses over time, and excess spending in the near term requires deceased spending in the future. Similarly, the remaining carbon budget is a fixed total quantity of future emissions that is small enough to limit global temperature increases before they exceed our climate targets.

Scientists' estimates of the remaining carbon budget vary widely. Studies often use different approaches or even definitions of what the carbon budget represents. This can involve different treatment of how greenhouse gases other than CO2 contribute to climate change, or the incomplete representation of some processes, such as the role of aerosols in climate change.

The large range of estimates can be used either to write off ambitious climate targets or argue that the transition to a low-carbon economy can proceed gradually over several decades. Neither extreme reflects the actual uncertainty especially well.

We developed a new way to generate a better estimate of the remaining carbon budget for the 1.5C limit of the Paris Agreement that integrates all major sources of uncertainty. Our results suggest that even if the growing list of countries committing to 2050 net-zero emissions targets reached their goals, we would still deplete the 1.5C remaining carbon budget more than a decade too soon.

This is a stark reminder of how quickly we are running out of time to achieve the most ambitious temperature goal of the Paris Agreement.

How much budget is left?

Our best estimate of the 1.5C remaining carbon budget is 440 billion tonnes of CO2 from 2020 onward. If human activities around the globe continue to produce CO2 at current rates, we will deplete the remaining carbon budget in a little more than 10 years.

If we slow our rate of emissions, the remaining budget will last longer. To avoid exceeding the remaining carbon budget, we need to stop emitting CO2 altogether. A budget of 440 billion tonnes from 2020 means that global CO2 emissions need to decrease to net-zero by about 2040.

However, even this would give us only a 50 percent chance of not exceeding 1.5C. For a 67 percent chance, total CO2 emissions must not exceed 230 billion tonnes. This is about five years of current emissions, or reaching net-zero emissions by 2030.

Global decarbonization within 10 to 20 years is obviously a daunting challenge. But is it an impossible one?

The past year saw global CO2 emissions drop by seven percent relative to 2019. Continued decrease at this rate would cause global emissions to reach net-zero by about 2035, giving us better than even odds of limiting global warming to 1.5C.

This will not occur without a global effort to change the trajectory of future emissions. The 2020 emissions drop was a side-effect of efforts to control COVID-19. If economic recovery efforts were targeted to try to bring emissions down further this could keep the 1.5C target within reach.

Changing the course of future emissions

At the peak of global lockdowns in April 2020, daily CO2 emissions decreased by almost 20 per cent relative to the same period in 2019. These insights can inform how COVID-19 recovery investments could be used to drive emissions further downward.

The largest relative decreases in emissions came from reductions in road transport, such as commuting by car, and air travel. Although we are all suffering from the loss of in-person interactions, we have also learned a lot about how to convene meetings, presentations, and collaborations online. While individual mobility will rebound as lockdowns ease, our crash course in remote working and learning means that we may not need to return to pre-COVID-19 travel levels.

Emissions from industry and power generation did not decrease as much, in relative terms. This points to the need for systemic changes in technological infrastructure to unlock the potential for lower-carbon economic activity.

Similar technological advances are also needed to support low-carbon travel in circumstances where online platforms are not up to the task. The combination of sustained individual behavioural change, with a rapid expansion of low-carbon infrastructure, has the potential to have a substantial effect on the trajectory of future CO2 emissions.

Staying within the remaining carbon budget

An increasing number of countries, cities, and companies are committing to net-zero emissions targets, where CO2 emissions are decreased to zero or to a level that is matched by the intentional removal of CO2 from the atmosphere. These targets are essential to any effort to stay within the remaining carbon budget.

Countries that have adopted or promised net-zero emissions targets include the European Union, United Kingdom, China, Canada, and the United States under the new Biden administration. Currently, most of these targets are set for 2050 (or 2060 in the case of China).

According to our estimate of the remaining carbon budget, these commitments are insufficient to limit warming to 1.5C. They may, however, limit warming to the higher temperature goal of the Paris Agreement: well below 2C.

The climate effects of other greenhouse gases, as well as of aerosols emitted from fossil fuel use, remain one of the largest sources of uncertainty in estimates of the remaining carbon budget. Our effectiveness in mitigating these other emissions could expand or contract the size of the remaining carbon budget.

This year will be key in our efforts to decrease emissions. COVID-19 has opened a window of opportunity to meet ambitious climate targets that might otherwise have been out of reach.

Governments around the world are spending unprecedented amounts to support and reinvigorate national economies. We must actively pursue this opportunity for a green recovery and avoid investing in infrastructure and industries that will lock in future CO2 emissions. Yet the COVID-19 stimulus packages announced so far are "missing the opportunity," according to the UN Environment Program's adaptation report released last week.

There are no emergency lockdown measures that will slow the rate of climate warming. Instead, we need targeted, substantial, and sustained effort and investments to continue to decrease and eventually eliminate global CO2 emissions. This window is open now, and we must not miss the opportunity.

H. Damon Matthews, Professor and Concordia University Research Chair in Climate Science and Sustainability, Concordia University and Kasia Tokarska, Postdoctoral research fellow, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

UK 50% USA 0.8%

Better Genetic Surveillance of COVID-19 Will Help Us Control The Pandemic, Says WHO

(vchal/iStock/Getty Images)
HEALTH


KELLY MACNAMARA, AFP
23 JANUARY 2021

To monitor changes to the coronavirus that could supercharge the pandemic or render vaccines less effective, scientists must sequence its genetic code to catalogue potentially dangerous mutations as they emerge.

But so few countries are conducting and sharing surveillance that experts are as worried about the mutations they cannot see as those they can.

Publication of the first genomic sequence of SARS-CoV-2 in January last year, at the very outset of the pandemic, allowed scientists to identify it as a new coronavirus, and begin developing diagnostic testing and vaccines.

Since then, tens of thousands of sequences have been uploaded on public databases, enabling mutations to be tracked with a degree of detail and a speed never achieved before.

But the lion's share of this information has come from just one country: Britain.

As of mid-January, GISAID – a major data sharing platform originally created to monitor influenza – had received 379,000 sequences.

Of these, 166,000 were from Britain's COVID-19 Genomics UK (COG-UK), a partnership between health authorities and academic institutions.

"This is the first time we are ever seeing how a pathogen evolves at this scale," said Ewan Harrison, Director of Strategy and Transformation at COG-UK and a fellow at the Wellcome Sanger Institute where much of the sequencing is being done.

"We are learning that these mutations accrue way faster than we thought."

Currently, the programme is sequencing 10,000 genomes a week – roughly 6 percent of known cases in Britain although that fluctuates – and the plan is to double that.

"The UK blows everyone else out of the water," said Emma Hodcroft, an epidemiologist at the University of Bern and co-developer on the Nextstrain virus tracking project.

"To me, this has been the moonshot of the pandemic, alongside the vaccines."

Denmark, she noted, also routinely sequences and shares data, but the information coming from most other countries is sporadic at best.

Sequencing has identified distinct variants – strains that have acquired clusters of new mutations – in Britain, South Africa, and Brazil in recent weeks.

The new, fast-spreading variant in the UK is "like a mini-pandemic within the pandemic", said Harrison.

But without systematic monitoring, he added, scientists might still not have figured out it was a "game changer".

Early warning did not stop the variant spreading – it has been detected in dozens of countries. But it has allowed other nations to prepare.

Without the warning from UK scientists, the world would probably be flying blind, said Hodcroft.

"If this was expanding in another country, we would just be looking at whatever country it was and going: 'Oh, they're having a bad rise in cases, I guess people aren't following the guidelines'," she told AFP.

Other variants have become visible only when they spread internationally from their point of origin.

Earlier this month, for example, a new strain – carrying a mutation, known as E484K, that researchers fear could evade immunity – was identified in Japan in people arriving from Brazil.
'Eyes and ears'

The World Health Organization has said better sequencing capacity is a worldwide priority.

Maria Van Kerkhove, the WHO's COVID-19 technical lead, recently described the number of sequences shared so far as "astounding", but said they were coming from just handful of countries.

"Improving the geographic coverage of sequencing is critical for the world to have eyes and ears on changes to the virus," she told an online forum.

New WHO guidance said a "revolution" in virus genomic investigation has helped build a better understanding of everything from Ebola to influenza.


And now, it said: "For the first time, genomic sequencing can help to guide the public health response to a pandemic in near-real time."

When another coronavirus, SARS, began spreading in 2002, only three genome variants were publicly shared in the first month, and 31 by month three.

This time, six genomes were available to researchers worldwide a few weeks after the virus emerged. Within six months there were 60,000 variants published.

Initially, the new coronavirus did not show much genetic diversity, said Hodcroft, even as it "exploded across Europe" due mainly to widespread travel.

But that lack of mutation was an important clue in itself.

"We were able to see that it really did seem to originate in China, because all the other sequences that were detected around the world nested within the diversity of the Chinese sequences," she told AFP.

During the summer of 2020 new strains emerged, displacing the earlier incarnations of the virus.
Emerging mutations

Mutations are to be expected in viral evolution and occur when a pathogen infects someone and sets about replicating itself.

Most of these new strains confer no advantage to the virus, and some are even detrimental. But occasionally a mutation increases infectiousness or causes more severe illness.

SARS-CoV-2 picks up changes at a slower rate than some other viruses, like HIV or influenza. But the more people a virus infects, the greater the opportunity for mutation.

This becomes even more likely in someone with a chronic illness – an extended exposure to a weakened immune system gives the virus more time to rack up multiple mutations.

Harrison said this may be how the new variant emerged in the UK, and researchers are now sequencing tests from immunocompromised patients, as well as people whose vaccine failed.
'New vision'

Systematic, countrywide sequencing has given researchers new insights into viral transmission.

In one case, it helped identify a minibus as the culprit in a hospital outbreak.

On a wider scale, an analysis of tens of thousands of SARS-CoV-2 sequences, published in Science this month, found that abundant travel and virus imports to the UK at the beginning of the epidemic seeded more than a thousand transmission lineages.

The next step is testing how different mutations affect transmission, disease severity, and vaccine effectiveness, and predicting as quickly as possible how a new variant might behave.

The WHO has said global sequencing will help "better understand the world of emerging pathogens and their interactions with humans and animals in a variety of climates, ecosystems, cultures, lifestyles and biomes".

"This knowledge will shape a new vision of the world and open new paradigms in epidemic and pandemic prevention and control."

But sequencing at scale is logistically complex.

"There were weeks when things didn't work properly, because you're building the systems from scratch at pace, mid-pandemic," Harrison said.

The Sanger Institute stores the tens of thousands of samples it receives every day in huge shipping container freezers and had to build robotics infrastructure to help sort through them.

Legal concerns meant COG-UK decided to share minimal information on the sequences in order to make them public, Harrison said. The issue was a hurdle for other countries, particularly those reliant on private healthcare providers retaining ownership of data.

Costs are also a challenge in many parts of the world, but Hodcroft said richer nations like the United States and those in Europe have no excuse.

"There is no reason we don't have coordinated sequencing responses, except... that we haven't decided to do it," she said.

© Agence France-Presse

Why Are New SARS-CoV-2 Variants Spreading So Dramatically Around The World?


Distribution of the virus's genomes. (https://nextstrain.org/)


SARAH OTTO, UBC, THE CONVERSATION
24 JANUARY 2021

A new variant of coronavirus has swept across the United Kingdom and been detected in the United States, Canada and elsewhere. Scientists are concerned that these new strains may spread more easily.

As an evolutionary biologist, I study how mutation and selection combine to shape changes in populations over time. Never before have we had so much real-time data about evolution as we do with SARS-CoV-2: over 380,000 genomes were sequenced last year.

SARS-CoV-2 has been mutating as it spreads, generating slight differences in its genome. These mutations allow scientists to trace who is related to whom across the family tree of the virus.

Evolutionary biologists, including myself, have cautioned against over-interpreting the threat posed by mutations. Most mutations will not help the virus, just like randomly kicking a working machine is unlikely to make it better.

But every once in a while a mutation or suite of mutations gives the virus an advantage. The data are convincing that the mutations carried by the variant that first appeared in the UK, known as B.1.1.7, make the virus more "fit."

Higher fitness or chance?

When a new variant becomes common, scientists determine the reason behind its spread. A virus carrying a particular mutation can rise in frequency by chance if it is:

carried by a superspreader;

moved to a new uninfected location;

introduced into a new segment of the population.


The latter two examples are called "founder events": a rapid rise in frequency can occur if a particular variant is introduced into a new group and starts a local epidemic. Chance events may explain the rise in frequency of several different SARS-CoV-2 variants.

But B.1.1.7 is an exception. It shows a very strong signal of selection. For the past two months, B.1.1.7 has risen in frequency faster than non-B.1.1.7 in virtually every week and health region in England. This data, reported on Dec. 21, 2020, helped convince UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson to place much of the country under lockdown and led to widespread travel bans from the UK

The rise of B.1.1.7 cannot be explained by a founder event in new regions, because COVID-19 was already circulating across the UK Founder events in a new segment of the population (e.g., following a conference) also aren't plausible given the widespread restrictions against large gatherings at the time.

Our ability to track the evolution of SARS-CoV-2 is due to the massive effort by scientists to share and analyze data in real time. But the incredibly detailed knowledge we have about B.1.1.7 is also due to just plain dumb luck. One of its mutations altered a section of the genome used to test for COVID-19 in the UK, allowing the picture of evolutionary spread to be drawn from more than 275,000 cases.

Evolution in action

Epidemiologists have concluded that B.1.1.7 is more transmissible, but there are no signs that it is more deadly. Some researchers estimate that B.1.1.7 increases the number of new cases caused by an infected individual (called the reproductive number or Rt) by between 40 and 80 per cent; another preliminary study found that Rt increased by 50-74 per cent.

A 40-80 per cent advantage means that B.1.1.7 isn't just a little more fit, it's a lot more fit. Even when selection is this strong, evolution isn't instantaneous. Our mathematical modelling, as well as that by others in Canada and the U.S., shows that it takes B.1.1.7 a couple of months to reach its meteoric rise, because only a small fraction of cases initially carries the new variant.

For many countries, like the U.S. and Canada, where the number of COVID-19 cases has been precariously rising, a variant that increases transmission by 40-80 per cent threatens to push us over the top. It could lead to exponential growth in cases and overwhelm already threadbare medical care. Evolutionary change takes a while, buying us maybe a few weeks to prepare.

More variants

One surprise for researchers was that B.1.1.7 bears a remarkable number of new mutations. B.1.1.7 has accumulated 30-35 changes over the past year. B.1.1.7 doesn't mutate at a higher rate, but it appears to have undergone a bout of rapid change in the recent past.

(NextStrain/CC BY 4.0)

The virus may have been carried by an immunocompromised individual. People with weaker immune systems fight the virus constantly, with prolonged infections, recurrent rounds of viral replication and only a partial immune response to which the virus is constantly evolving.

Preliminary research reports that have yet to be verified have described two other variants of concern: one originally from South Africa (B.1.351) and one from Brazil (P1). Both variants show a recent history of excess mutations and rapid increases in frequency within local populations. Scientists are currently gathering the data needed to confirm that selection for higher transmission, not chance, is responsible.
What changed to allow spread?

Selection plays two roles in the evolution of these variants. First consider the role within those individuals in which the large number of mutants arose. B.1.1.7's 23 mutations and P1's 21 mutations aren't randomly arrayed across the genome but clustered in the gene encoding the spike protein.

One change in the spike, called N501Y, arose independently in all three variants, as well as in immunocompromised patients studied in the U.S. and UK Other changes in the spike (e.g. E484K, del69-70) are seen in two of the three variants.

Beyond the spike, the three variants of concern share one additional mutation that deletes a small part of the drably named "non-structural protein 6" (NSP6). We don't yet know what the deletion does, but in a related coronavirus NSP6 tricks a cellular defence system and may promote coronavirus infection. NSP6 also hijacks this system to help copy the viral genome. Either way, the deletion might alter the ability of the virus to take hold and replicate within our cells.
Easier transmission

The parallel evolution of the same mutations in different countries and in different immunocompromised patients suggests that they convey a selective advantage to evade the immune systems of the individuals in which the mutations occurred. For N501Y, this has been backed up by experiments in mice.

But what accounts for the higher transmission rate from individual to individual? This is challenging to answer because the many mutations that arose at once are now bundled together in these variants, and it could be any one or a combination of them that leads to the transmission advantage.

That said, several of these variants have arisen before on their own and haven't led to rapid spread. One study showed that N501Y had only a weak transmission advantage on its own, rising rapidly only when coupled with the suite of mutations observed in B.1.1.7.

While the evolutionary story of COVID is still being written, one important message is emerging now. The 40-80 per cent transmission advantage of B.1.1.7, and potentially the other variants B.1.351 and P1, will overwhelm many countries in the next few months.

We're in a race against viral evolution. We must roll out vaccines as quickly as possible, stem the flow of variants by restricting interactions and travel, and get in front of spread by ramping up surveillance and contact tracing.

Sarah Otto, Killam University Professor in Evolutionary Biology, University of British Columbia.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Is news worth a lot or a little? 

Google and Facebook want to have it both ways

Tim Dwyer

January 24, 2021

Executives from Google and Facebook have told a Senate committee they are prepared to take drastic action if Australia’s news media bargaining code, which would force the internet giants to pay news publishers for linking to their sites, comes into force.

Google would have “no real choice” but to cut Australian users off entirely from its flagship search engine, the company’s Australian managing director Mel Silva told the committee. Facebook representatives in turn said they would remove links to news articles from the newsfeed of Australian users if the code came into effect as it currently stands.

Read more: Expect delays and power plays: Google and Facebook brace as news media bargaining code is set to become law

In response, the Australian government shows no sign of backing down, with Prime Minister Scott Morrison and Treasurer Josh Frydenberg both saying they won’t respond to threats.

So what’s going on here? Are Google and Facebook really prepared to pull services from their Australian users rather than hand over some money to publishers under the bargaining code?
Is news valuable to Facebook and Google?

Facebook claims news is of little real value to its business. It doesn’t make money from news directly, and claims that for an average Australian user less than 5% of their newsfeed is made up of links to Australian news.

But this is hard to square with other information. In 2020, the University of Canberra’s Digital News Report found some 52% of Australians get news via social media, and the number is growing. Facebook also boasts of its investments in news via deals with publishers and new products such as Facebook News

.

Facebook executive Simon Milner appears before the Senate committee via video link. 

Mick Tsikas / AAP

Google likewise says it makes little money from news, while at the same time investing heavily in news products like News Showcase.

So while links to news may not be direct advertising money-spinners for Facebook or Google, both see the presence of news as an important aspect of audience engagement with their products.

On their own terms

While both companies are prepared to give some money to news publishers, they want to make deals on their own terms. But Google and Facebook are two of the largest and most profitable companies in history – and each holds far more bargaining power than any news publisher. The news media bargaining code sets out to undo this imbalance.

What’s more, Google and Facebook don’t appear to want to accept the unique social role of news, and public interest journalism in particular. Nor do they recognise they might be involved somehow in the decline of the news business over the past decade or two, instead pointing the finger at impersonal shifts in advertising technology.

The media bargaining code being introduced is far too systematic for them to want to accept it. They would rather pick and choose commercial agreements with “genuine commercial consideration”, and not be bound by a one-size-fits-all set of arbitration rules.

Read more: Changing the rules to control monopolies could see the end of Facebook domination

A history of US monopolies

Google and Facebook dominate web search and social media, respectively, in ways that echo the great US monopolies of the past: rail in the 19th century, then oil and later telecommunications in the 20th. All these industries became fundamental forms of capitalist infrastructure for economic and social development. And all these monopolies required legislation to break them up in the public interest.

It’s unsurprising that the giant ad-tech media platforms don’t want to follow the rules, but they must acknowledge that their great wealth and power come with a moral responsibility to society. Making them face up to that responsibility will require government intervention.

Online pioneers Vint Cerf (now VP and Chief Internet Evangelist at Google) and Tim Berners-Lee (“inventor of the World Wide Web”) have also made submissions to the Senate committee advocating on behalf of the corporations. They made high-minded claims that the code will break the “free and open” internet.

Read more: Web's inventor says news media bargaining code could break the internet. He's right — but there's a fix

But today’s internet is hardly free and open: for most users “the internet” is huge corporate platforms like Google and Facebook. And those corporations don’t want Australian senators interfering with their business model.

Independent senator Rex Patrick hit the nail on the head when he asked why Google wouldn’t admit the fundamental issue was about revenue, rather than technical detail or questions of principle.
How seriously should we take threats to leave the Australian market?

Google and Facebook are prepared to go along with the Senate committee’s processes, so long as they can modify the arrangement. The don’t want to be seen as uncooperative.

The threat to leave (or as Facebook’s Simon Milner put it, the “explanation” of why they would be forced to do so) is their worst-case scenario. It seems likely they would risk losing significant numbers of users if they did so, or at least having them much less engaged – and hence producing less advertising revenue.

Google has already run small-scale experiments to test removing Australian news from search. This may be a demonstration that the threat to withdraw from Australia is serious, or at least, serious brinkmanship.

People know news is important, that it shapes their interactions with the world – and provides meaning and helps them navigate their lives. So who would Australians blame if Google and Facebook really do follow through? The government or the friendly tech giants they see every day? That’s harder to know.

For transparency, please note The Conversation has also made a submission to the Senate inquiry regarding the News Media and Digital Platforms Mandatory Bargaining Code.

AUTHOR

Tim Dwyer
Associate Professor, Department of Media and Communications, University of Sydney

Disclosure statement
Tim Dwyer receives funding from the Australian Research Council for media policy projects researching media pluralism and online news, and platform governance.
Partners

University of Sydney provides funding as a member of The Conversation AU.

Chicago Teachers Union members vote to continue teaching remotely Monday

Light, Alan. (2015). "Chicago Skyline" [Photograph]. Retrieved from Flickr.

AUTHOR
Roger Riddell@K12DiveRoger

PUBLISHEDJan. 24, 2021

Dive Brief:
Members of the Chicago Teachers Union voted this weekend to continue teaching remotely Monday in a move that runs counter to Chicago Public Schools’ reopening plan, the Chicago Sun-Times reports.

As a result, the district will delay its plan until Wednesday to allow time to resolve differences without disrupting learning.

The union said if no deal is reached or teachers are barred from remote work, it would “officially” strike, according to the Sun-Times.

The only LMS that includes your assessment and data solutions.Discover Otus
Dive Insight:

Tensions between the union and district escalated last week, resulting in a union-wide vote on a resolution that passed the organization’s 700-member House of Delegates with 84% approval. The resolution would see members pledge to continue teaching remotely while refusing an in-person return until a written agreement on safe working conditions is reached with the district.

CPS, which has planned to bring back around 70,000 K-8 students on Feb. 1, had previously warned such a walkout would amount to an “illegal strike.” Initial data from the district issued the week of Jan. 11 showed 678 educators didn’t return the first day schools were reopened for pre-K and special education students.

The district had previously taken steps including locking non-returning teachers out of remote learning platforms and threatening to dock pay if they didn’t return.

The Chicago impasse comes as proposals to return to in-person school nationwide are met with mixed feelings from many in school communities.

As detailed in our ongoing tracker of the COVID-19 pandemic's impact on K-12, it's widely understood that most students see greater benefit from in-person learning and many are suffering from the lack of both social and academic ties. But as the pandemic persists and vaccination efforts hit bumps in the road, educators — an estimated quarter of whom are at high-risk due to age or comorbidities, or are taking care of someone in a high-risk group — are also concerned about risks to themselves and their families.

A DECADE OF AUSTERITY

Prior to COVID-19, states cut $600B in ed funding since Great Recession

"Money" by Ervins Strauhmanis is licensed under CC BY 2.0

AUTHOR
Roger Riddell@K12DiveRoger

PUBLISHEDJan. 15, 2021

Dive Brief:
A pair of reports released Thursday by the Education Law Center — "Making the Grade 2020" and "$600 Billion Lost: State Disinvestment in Education Following the Great Recession" — add deeper context to the financial turmoil facing the nation's public schools and further highlight the adverse impact states' education funding cuts were already having prior to the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic.

According to "$600 Billion Lost," public schools lost a total of $598 billion in state and local revenue in the years following the Great Recession, with PK-12 funding in all but four states in 2018 representing a smaller portion of economic activity than before the crisis. The report graded how equitably states funded public schools based on three metrics: funding level, funding distribution and funding effort.

Meanwhile, "Making the Grade" shows dramatic variations in school funding levels from state to state, with those in the Northeast and Midwest generally trending toward higher funding levels than the South and West. In the top states, funding provided as much as 50% more than the national average of $14,548 per pupil, while the bottom states were as low as 30% less.

Dive Insight:

The dual reports highlight the perilous financial situation schools across the U.S. faced prior to the onset of the novel coronavirus pandemic in spring 2020. According to "Making the Grade," for example, 15 states also have "regressive" systems for K-12 funding that allocate less funding to high-poverty districts than those with lower poverty rates — an issue that can cause even more strife if, for example, the same formulas are used to disburse emergency COVID-19 relief funds to schools.

“As states confront the COVID-19 public health crisis, these reports are a stark reminder of the long-lasting implications of shortsighted economic policy,” said Jennifer Doeren, director of the Partnership for Equity & Education Rights, in a press release. “Going forward, it’s critical that threats to school funding are met with a strong and sustained demand that governors and legislators not reduce but increase their state’s investment in its public schools.”

ELC Executive Director David Sciarra added, “We’ve already seen New York, Texas and other states make devastating budget cuts in response to the economic downturn brought on by the pandemic. Our students, especially in schools segregated by poverty and race, simply cannot afford to lose teachers, counselors, nurses and other supports at a time when they need more not less.”

On top of pandemic-related cuts that have been made or are expected in the coming years, school districts have also incurred significant new expenses as they transitioned to online learning models and added safety measures that mitigate transmission of the virus in school buildings. In May, the Association of School Business Officials International and AASA, The School Superintendents Association, estimated the average district would have to spend approximately $194,045 for personal protective equipment, $1.23 million to hire additional staff such as custodians and nurses, and $116,950 for health and disinfecting equipment.

Under December's relief package and last spring's Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act, K-12 schools were provided $54.3 billion and $13.5 billion, respectively.

Compounding the issue, The New York Times reports wealthy private schools were able to gain access to emergency Paycheck Protection Program funds made available to help small businesses weather the pandemic.

Sierra Canyon High School, an elite Los Angeles private school serving the children of stars including LeBron James, was cited as an example, having received $3.14 million under the program while the city's traditional public schools received around $716,000 in relief funds. Similarly, the Sidwell Friends School, a District of Columbia private school once attended by Sasha and Malia Obama, reportedly received $5.22 million in PPP funds while D.C. Public Schools got an average of $189,000 in relief funds.

RIP
Jimmie Rodgers, who sang the hits 'Honeycomb' and 'Kisses Sweeter Than Wine,' dies at 87

GUILTY PLEASURES GROWING UP

The Associated Press

PALM DESERT, Calif. – Jimmie Rodgers, singer of the 1957 hits "Honeycomb" and "Kisses Sweeter Than Wine" whose career in music and movies was disrupted by a severe head injury a decade later, has died at age 87.

Rodgers died from kidney disease on Jan. 18 in Palm Desert, California, and had also tested positive for COVID-19, publicist Alan Eichler said Saturday, citing family.

Rodgers performed for $10 a night around Nashville while stationed there with the U.S. Air Force after the Korean War. He appeared on a talent show and got an audition with Roulette Records, which signed him after hearing him perform "Honeycomb," a song by Bob Merrill.

With a style of singing and playing guitar that included elements of country, folk and pop, the Camas, Washington native recorded many other Top 10 hits during the late 1950s, including "Secretly," "Oh-Oh, I'm Falling in Love Again," and "Are You Really Mine?"

Rodgers continued making albums for the better part of the 1960s, producing music that ranged from covering traditional songs like "The Wreck of the 'John B.' " and "English Country Garden" to popular fare such as the ballad "Child of Clay."

He had established himself on television with performances on variety shows when he moved into acting in movies during the 1960s. His film credits included "The Little Shepherd of Kingdom Come" and "Back Door to Hell" with a young Jack Nicholson.


POLICE BRUTALITY
In 1967, Rodgers was found in his car on a Los Angeles freeway suffering from a fractured skill and other injuries. He said he had pulled over and stopped in response to a driver behind him who was flashing his lights and that an attack from an an off-duty police officer had caused his head injuries.

"I rolled the window down to ask what was the matter," he told The Toronto Star in 1987. "That's the last thing I remember."

Los Angeles police officers insisted that Rodgers had injured himself in a fall while drunk. Rodgers filed a lawsuit and agreed to a $200,000 settlement. He subsequently developed a condition that caused spasms in the muscles of his voice box. He also had occasional seizures, which he said were due to the attack.

After his initial recovery, Rodgers had a summer TV show on ABC in 1969 and also performed at his own theater in Branson, Missouri.

In a 2016 interview with The Spectrum, a Utah newspaper, Rodgers recalled finding a $10 guitar and singing when he was in the Air Force and stationed in Korea in 1953.

"We were sitting on the floor with only candles for light, and these tough soldiers had tears running down their cheeks. I realized if my music could have that effect, that's what I wanted to do with my life," he said.

Survivors include his wife, Mary Louise Biggerstaff, and five children from three marriages.

The South African coronavirus mutation can infect multiple times, could hamper vaccine

A new study reveals that a large number of people with COVID-19 antibodies may not be protected from the new strain

By MATTHEW ROZSA

JANUARY 23, 2021

A patient with the COVID-19 breaths in oxygen in the COVID-19 ward at Khayelitsha Hospital, about 35km from the centre of Cape Town, on December 29, 2020. 

(RODGER BOSCH/AFP via Getty Images)

A mutant strain of the novel coronavirus discovered in South Africa appears to be able to ward off antibodies from individuals who had previously recovered from COVID-19 — meaning if the new strain becomes widespread, we may see more people getting infected multiple times.

A group of South African scientists made this discovery in a paper published earlier this week by South Africa's National Institute for Communicable Diseases. In it, researchers describe how they studied blood samples from a small group of people who had developed COVID-19 but ultimately recovered. When the human body recovers from a disease, it produces a protein known as an antibody to identify and ultimately protect itself in the future from the bacteria or virus which caused it to become ill. (These illness-causing microorganisms are known as pathogens.) This means that people who were sick with COVID-19 should in theory have antibodies that recognize the pathogen which causes it and neutralize it in the event that they are reinfected.

Instead, according to the authors of the paper, half of the blood samples of the patients they tested did not have the antibodies necessary to protect them from the 501Y.V2 strain of the novel coronavirus, which was identified in South Africa last month. While it was a small study and more research will need to be done, the initial results are not auspicious.

Not only could this interfere with the human population's ability to develop natural immunity, it could also hamper the efficacy of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines. Both companies are distributing mRNA vaccines, which are different from traditional vaccines that train the immune system to develop antibodies against pathogens by injecting weakened or dead versions of the disease-causing agents into the body. mRNA vaccines, by contrast, inject a synthetic single-stranded molecule of RNA that infects our own cells and makes them produce the protein that grows on the "spike" on the exterior of the coronavirus. The presence of this protein in the body is then recognized as an intruder, and the immune system learns to identify the coronavirus as an enemy and protect against it.

In the case of the COVID-19 vaccines, both of them train the body to recognize a protein on the SARS-CoV-2 virus known as Spike. Spike is the protein that helps the virus enter human cells and resembles little pins that stick out from the sphere of the virus itself, like the spines that poke out all around a sea urchin. Unfortunately, the South African mutation alters that very protein, meaning that it could affect the vaccine's efficacy.

The South African strain is not the only one raising concern. There is a new strain in Brazil that the scientists argue "also has changes at key positions" in ways that could impair antibodies' effectiveness against the disease. Then there is a strain in the United Kingdom known as B117 that, though not deadlier than previous strains, is more transmissible.

"I think transmissible is definitely the word to go with because that highlights what we do know and what we don't know," Dr. Dylan Morris, a postdoctoral research scholar at UCLA, told Salon earlier this month about the British strain. "Even if the disease severity isn't increased or even if it decreases by a small amount, 'more transmissible' is still a very scary thing at this point in the pandemic, because that could result in faster spread and faster exponential growth."

MATTHEW ROZSA
is a staff writer for Salon. He holds an MA in History from Rutgers University-Newark and is ABD in his PhD program in History at Lehigh University. His work has appeared in Mic, Quartz and MSNBC.

A socialist ‘hacktivist’ has helped expose the platform used by both US rioters and UK government ministers

Tom Coburg
23rd January 2021

On 6 January 2021, hundreds of Trump supporters invaded and occupied the Capitol building in Washington DC, the seat of the US Congress and Senate. The rioters damaged property and five people died. Two pipe bombs were reportedly found in buildings not far from the Capitol. In the aftermath, Trump was impeached by the House of Representatives for “incitement of insurrection”.

Now, thanks to the swift work of a ‘hacktivist’, more information is coming to light about what really happened during the lead-up to the invasion of the Capitol.
Home for hate speech

Southern Poverty Law Center’s (SPLC) ‘Hatewatch’ has accused social media platform Parler of being “a haven for recruitment and promotion for the Jan. 6 pro-Trump riot at the U.S. Capitol building”. For example, it reports that Proud Boys member Jeremy Bertino wrote on Parler, “Find the traitors and get the rope. THIS IS OUR HOUSE!!”. It also reported that Kevin Greeson, one of those who died during the invasion of the Capitol building, posted “Let’s take this fucking Country BACK!! Load your guns and take to the streets!”

The reaction was swift. Following the Capitol invasion, Google and Apple suspended Parler from their app stores. Not long after, Parler was also suspended by Amazon from its web hosting service.

In its court filings, dated 12 January 2021, Amazon Web Services said:
this case is about Parler’s demonstrated unwillingness and inability to remove from the servers of Amazon Web Services (“AWS”) content that threatens the public safety, such as by inciting and planning the rape, torture, and assassination of named public officials and private citizens.

And there’s this:

Parler has attracted prominent politicians and political activists. In July 2020, the Independent reported that subscribers included far-right commentator Milo Yiannopoulos and Proud Boys founder Gavin McInnes. SPLC reports that Boogaloo’s Last Sons Of Liberty, as well as Infowars‘ Alex Jones and Owen Shroyer, are also Parler subscribers. And CNN Business names QAnon members as subscribers. According to the Independent:”The president is not on the app (yet), but his son Eric Trump and White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany are, along with his Republican allies like Devin Nunes, Jim Jordan, [and Republican congressman] Matt Gaetz“.
UK subscribers

On the other side of the Atlantic, UK government minister Michael Gove was named as one of several Conservative MPs who opened accounts on Parler. Others include foreign office minister James Cleverly, health minister Nadine Dorries, trade minister Ranil Jayawardena, arch-Brexiter Steve Baker, and Conservative MP Ben Bradley.

According to the Guardian:

The most prolific Tory MP on the site was Bradley who sent 52 “parleys” and had more than 12,000 followers. Gove sent at least 26 parleys and had more than 5,000 followers.

Darren Grimes, who worked for BeLeave, was another Parler account subscriber. BeLeave was a pro-Brexit campaign group linked with Vote Leave that was fronted by Gove and Boris Johnson. Hate purveyor Katie Hopkins has a Parler account too.

Financial backers


It’s been revealed that a co-founder and now financial backer of Parler is Rebekah Mercer. Both she and her father Robert have also financed Breitbart News, formerly run by controversial right-winger and Brexit supporter Steve Bannon. And Bannon was also a “board member, vice-president, and part-owner” of Cambridge Analytica (CA), the discredited former data mining company.

But it gets even more complicated. According to the Guardian, Robert Mercer helped bankroll CA as well as Trump’s election campaign. Moreover, it’s claimed that a company called Emerdata is the successor to CA and its parent SCL. And in 2017, Rebekah Mercer set up Emerdata and made herself a director, together with former CA chief Alexander Nix.

As for web hosting, Vice reported on 11 January that Parler was being hosted by Epik, which SPLC describes as “cornering the market on websites where hate speech is thriving”. However, on 19 January, the Guardian reported that Parler is being hosted by Russia-based DDos-Guard, whose clients include the Russian ministry of defence.

As we go to press, the new Parler site appears to be experiencing ‘technical difficulties’. In a statement on its website Parler, denies its role in the Capitol building invasion:

Parler is gratified that the court refused to uncritically accept Amazon’s argument – widely repeated in the media – that the Parler platform was somehow used to plan, coordinate or execute the despicable January 6 riot at the Capitol.

Based on the evidence of which we are aware, the Parler platform was not used in that manner

No hiding place

In the immediate aftermath of the Capitol invasion, hacker donk_enby, who according to Vice considers herself an anarcho-socialist, archived much of Parler‘s content so as to preserve self-incriminating postings. Vice reports she scraped “56.7 terabytes of data, which included every public post on Parler, 412 million files in all—including 150 million photos and more than 1 million videos”. She added how she was helped in the task by the Archive Team.

She also clarified, “Everything we grabbed was publicly available on the web, we just made a permanent public snapshot of it”. A webpage on the Parler archive explains how to access the data. That webpage is part of the Distributed Denial of Secrets site, which includes many other data collections.

Meanwhile, ProPublica has published a selection of 500 videos that were posted on Parler and which help show what happened in the invasion of the Capitol building.
Collateral damage

US attorney and activist Malaika Jabali warns:

Parler may be homeless now, but there is an entire world that welcomes the hatred and violence it cultivates

It’s all about the company you keep; or, to put it another way, which sewer you choose to swim in.

And with the downfall of Trump, there could be more casualties from the Capitol invasion and Parler bans.