Academic Analysis – Page 4 – MIL Submissions Engine

March 26, 2026

‘I didn’t come here to get rich’: new research on the lives of Ukrainian women in Georgia’s surrogacy boom

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Olga Oleinikova, Associate Professor and Director of the SITADHub (Social Impact Technologies and Democracy Research Hub) in the School of Communication, University of Technology Sydney

Jonas Gratzer/LightRocket via Getty Images

“I didn’t come here to get rich. I came because I had no other way to keep my son safe and care for my displaced family”.

Anna is a 28-year-old woman from eastern Ukraine. She fled the country in 2023 after Russian troops invaded. Two years later, she agreed to become a surrogate in Georgia for wealthy foreign couples.

We met Anna, who was already pregnant, in a quiet apartment that had been rented for her by a surrogacy agency on the outskirts of the capital, Tbilisi.

Our multidisciplinary team was in Georgia to conduct a pilot research project examining the small country’s rapidly expanding surrogacy industry.

We conducted in-depth interviews with Ukrainian women to better understand their motivations for entering surrogacy arrangements, their experiences within the system, and the social, economic, and legal factors shaping their decision-making and wellbeing.

We also analysed publicly available policy and regulatory documents from the government to examine how the sector operates. We paid particular attention to emerging regulatory challenges, gaps in oversight and the state’s efforts to balance economic opportunity with ethical and human rights considerations.

The shifting geography of surrogacy

Surrogacy laws vary widely around the world. Some countries, including Australia, prohibit commercial surrogacy. Others allow it under specific conditions. These differences create cross-border markets, where intended parents travel abroad to access services that are restricted, expensive or unavailable at home.

Before Russia’s full-scale invasion in 2022, Ukraine was one of the world’s largest commercial surrogacy hubs. Estimates suggest between 2,000 and 2,500 babies were born each year through surrogacy arrangements.

War disrupted the industry. Clinics closed or relocated. Travel became dangerous. Media outlets reported on intended parents struggling to reach newborns and surrogates displaced by fighting. Georgia became a safe alternative.

The Beta Fertility clinic run by the New Life Georgia surrogacy agency in Tbilisi in November 2023.
Photo by Marie Audinet / Hans Lucas via AFP

International surrogacy has been legal in Georgia since 1997. That’s when the country adopted legislation allowing both gestational (a woman carrying an embryo not genetically related to her) and traditional surrogacy (a woman carrying an embryo for another couple using her own egg). The first children were born through gestational surrogacy around 2007.

The country’s clear legal framework – recognising intended parents as the child’s legal guardians from birth and granting no parental rights to the surrogate – has been a key factor in its appeal.

Costs are also significantly lower than in the United States. As independent international surrogacy consultant Olga Pysana told us:

In the last year, surrogacy in Georgia cost approximately US$55,000 to $85,000 (A$78,000 to A$120,000), whereas surrogacy in the United States can cost as much as US$250,000 (A$350,000).

With international demand surging in the 2010s, Georgia (a small country of 3.7 million people) quickly became unable to meet the needs of so many parents with local women alone. So clinics began recruiting potential surrogates from abroad, including from Ukraine, Central Asian countries, Russia, Belarus, Thailand and the Philippines.

Mobile surrogates

Several of the women we interviewed had previously worked with Ukrainian agencies. After the invasion, recruiters contacted them again – this time offering placements in Georgia.

Displacement has produced a new and economically vulnerable workforce. We describe these women as “mobile surrogates”: women who move across borders to provide reproductive labour in response to war, economic crises or changing surrogacy laws. “If there was no war, I would never have left,” Anna told us.

Most of the women we interviewed had lost homes, jobs or partners. Many were supporting children and extended family members across borders. Anna had worked in a shop before the war, then cleaned houses in Poland. “Surrogacy in Georgia pays in nine months what I would earn in years,” she said.

Our research found that surrogates are typically paid around US$20,000 (A$35,500) in instalments. For families displaced by war, this amount of money can cover rent, relocation costs and schooling.

A surrogate undergoes an ultrasound scan at the Beta Fertility Clinic in Tbilisi, Georgia, in November 2023.
Marie Audinet/Hans Lucas/AFP/Getty images

But the arrangements come with strict contractual conditions. Women may face limits on travel, their diets and daily routines. Some live in shared apartments organised by agencies.

Independent legal advice is rare. Anna signed a contract in a language she did not fully understand, but felt she had little alternative: “I just needed something stable. I couldn’t keep moving from place to place”.

Georgia’s legal framework says little about labour standards, housing conditions or long-term health support for surrogates after birth. The result is an imbalance: strong protections for intended parents, and weaker safeguards for the women carrying babies.

A draft bill was introduced in 2023 aimed at curbing paid surrogacy for foreigners, due to growing concerns about the commercialisation of the industry and potential exploitation of surrogate mothers. However, it is still pending. As of early 2026, surrogacy remains legal in Georgia for foreign heterosexual couples.

Three trends we are seeing

First, reproductive markets are highly responsive to crises. When Ukraine’s industry became unstable, demand shifted rapidly to Georgia. Global fertility markets operate like other transnational industries: when one site contracts, another expands.

Second, economic inequality shapes who participates. Displacement and financial insecurity increase women’s willingness to enter demanding reproductive arrangements.

Third, the surrogates bear the brunt of regulatory ambiguities and associated risks and challenges. This includes dealing with contracts and medical procedures in languages they don’t understand.

Reform is needed

In Georgia, clearer labour protections are essential: minimum housing standards, transparent payment schedules, and mandatory, independent legal advice in a language surrogates understand. Health coverage for the women should also extend beyond birth.

The major markets for surrogacy services, including China, the US, Australia, Israel, Germany and others, should also review how their citizens engage in overseas surrogacy. This includes stronger regulation of agencies marketing abroad and clearer ethical guidance for intended parents.

Finally, greater international coordination is needed. Shared standards for cross-border surrogacy would improve transparency and accountability in a rapidly expanding and loosely regulated global market.

As demand grows, the central question is not whether cross-border surrogacy will continue, but whether it can be governed in ways that safeguard fairness, transparency and the rights of the women whose bodies sustain it.

Nothing to disclose.

Olga Oleinikova and Polina Vlasenko do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. ‘I didn’t come here to get rich’: new research on the lives of Ukrainian women in Georgia’s surrogacy boom – https://theconversation.com/i-didnt-come-here-to-get-rich-new-research-on-the-lives-of-ukrainian-women-in-georgias-surrogacy-boom-276173

March 26, 2026

Trump is remaking the US media in his own image – and smashing accountability with it

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Rodney Tiffen, Emeritus Professor, Department of Government and International Relations, University of Sydney

This is the point of absurdity we have reached: on March 15, US President Donald Trump, in a Truth Social post, asserted that American news organisations were running AI-generated Iranian propaganda, and should be charged with treason for the dissemination of false information. One of the instances he cited was coverage of Iranians at a rally to support new Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei, which he said was totally AI-generated, and the event never took place, despite abundant evidence to the contrary.

The most powerful man in the world is making large and important claims, one palpably false, the others without offering any evidence, and it seems few if any people take him seriously. Then he blithely threatens to charge unnamed people with treason, which in the United States is potentially a capital offence, and again it is not clear anyone takes him seriously. Despite the all-but-universal dismissal of his statements, he will probably suffer no political consequences. It is just another drop in an ocean of unaccountability.

One reason it will pass with negligible consequences is that these accusations have become so commonplace. Republicans have long railed against the “liberal” news media, but the Trump administration has brought such attacks to a new level of intensity.

In 2017, his first year in office, Trump denounced “fake news” and called the media the enemy of the American people. He said he had a “running war” with the media, and described journalists as “among the most dishonest human beings on Earth”.

Trump’s standard response to a question he doesn’t want to answer is to call the reporter (especially female reporters) a nasty person, or to denounce the organisation they work for. Recently his response to a US ABC reporter’s question was that her employer “may be the most corrupt news organisation on the planet. I think they’re terrible.”

As the war with Iran threatened to become more politically contentious, the administration has trained its rhetorical sights on the media. Trump endorsed Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr’s threat to revoke broadcast licences of “the corrupt and highly unpatriotic media”:

They get billions of Dollars of FREE American airwaves, and use it to perpetuate LIES, both in news and almost all of their shows, including the Late Night Morons, who get gigantic Salaries for horrible Ratings.

Far more than any of his predecessors, Trump concerns himself with individuals and media organisations. For example, he thought Netflix should dismiss one of its board members who had worked for his Democrat predecessors Barack Obama and Joe Biden: “Netflix should fire, racist, Trump deranged Susan Rice IMMEDIATELY.”

A history of legal action

Trump has gone beyond rhetorical denunciations, however. He is the first US president, in recent times at least, to sue a news organisation. His targets so far have included the Pulitzer Prize Board, the Des Moines Register and its pollster Ann Selzer, the Wall St Journal, the New York Times, Penguin Random House and the BBC.

Without exception, his writs have no legal merit. (He has already lost suits against the New York Times, Washington Post and CNN). They are a means of harassment or perhaps just a threat: Trump sued CBS in 2024 over the editing of a 60 Minutes interview with Kamala Harris. Initially CBS said the case had no merit. However, in July 2025 it agreed to settle for $16 million.

The agreement came amid CBS parent company Paramount’s $8.4 billion merger with Skydance, which received regulatory approval weeks later. Stephen Colbert, host of its top-rating night show, called it “a big fat bribe”. Three days later Colbert’s show was cancelled, which the network said was purely a financial decision.

Trump congratulated himself in a post on his Truth Social site under the headline “President Trump is reshaping the media”. He listed 12 media organisations and individuals who are “gone”, such as CNN reporter Jim Acosta and Colbert. Then he listed a dozen “reforms”, such as CNN having new ownership. He finished the post with the word “Winning”.

Apart from the president, the most enthusiastic member of the cabinet in harassing the media is former Fox News presenter, now secretary of war, Pete Hegseth. Last year he announced that journalists who solicited unauthorised military information would have their access revoked and be deemed a security risk. Fifty-five out of 56 accredited journalists refused to sign the new agreement. In March a judge ruled the policy was unconstitutional but the government has said it will appeal.

Recently, Hegseth thought photos of him were “unflattering”, so photographers were banned from his next two briefings.

So it is not surprising Hegseth has been a vocal critic of media coverage. He finished one recent tirade by saying: “The sooner David Ellison takes over [CNN], the better.”

Ellison at the wheel

What is new and alarming about this is the reference to Ellison. It follows one of the biggest corporate takeovers in history. Ellison’s company, Paramount Skydance, has just succeeded in taking over Warner Bros Discovery. CNN is part of the package Ellison has acquired.

David is the son of Larry Ellison, the sixth-richest person in the world, who founded Oracle, a wildly successful software company. After Trump became president, the Ellisons moved into media in a big way.

The family first attracted public prominence when it was a central part of Trump choreographing the formation of a US TikTok company. Biden, with the approval of Congress, had sought to ban the popular video-sharing platform because of worries about security with the Chinese company ByteDance. Instead, Trump, on his first day of this second term, started a process to make it US-based, to remove the security risk.

In the end, Ellison’s Oracle, Silver Lake and MGX became the three managing investors, each holding a 15% share in the new company. The Chinese company ByteDance retained 19.9% of the joint venture. Oracle would also handle all the software aspects. All up, a very Trump-friendly outcome.

The Ellisons next attracted attention in July 2025, when their niche media company Skydance merged with Paramount to form Paramount Plus. This made them the owner not only of one of the biggest film studios but also of TV network CBS. The consequences for CBS news have already been far-reaching.

Ellison began by pledging to end the company’s “diversity equity and inclusion” initiatives. He appointed as ombudsman the former head of a conservative think tank and named Bari Weiss, a centre-right advocate, as editor-in-chief of CBS News.

An early controversy hit with a CBS 60 Minutes episode on a notorious prison in El Salvador, where the US government is sending migrant detainees. Although it was cleared through all the normal internal processes, the story was blocked at the last minute in what the reporter called an act of censorship. It was shown four weeks later.

Six out of 20 evening news producers have left CBS, with one, Alicia Hastey, saying the kind of work she came to do was increasingly impossible, as stories were now evaluated not just on their journalistic merit but on whether they conform to a shifting set of ideological expectations.

In a missive to the newsroom, Weiss declared “we love America” should be the guiding principle for the relaunch of CBS Evening News. Putting this into practice, the new anchor of the evening news, Tony Dokoupil, finished one program by saying “[Secretary of State] Marco Rubio, we salute you”.

Ellison’s early acquisitions were dwarfed by the recent battle between Paramount Plus and Netflix to take over Warner Bros Discovery, which Paramount finally won in February 2026. Paramount’s final, winning offer valued the company at US$111 billion (A$159 billion), paying US$31 (A$44) per share. Months earlier, Netflix’s original offer was US$19 (A$27) per share. Assuming the deal goes through, Paramount will carry an estimated US$90 billion (A$128.6 billion) of debt, but it will also have a conglomerate of media-related holdings like no other company in history.

Despite the size of the takeover, which has several implications for reduced competition, commentators are confident it will achieve regulatory approval. This is principally because in the Trump era there is a strong, shall we say, transactional flavour about when regulation is enforced and when not. Trump has described the Ellisons as “two great people”. “They’re friends of mine. They’re big supporters of mine. And they’ll do the right thing.”

Media monsters

In the 1950s, looking at the way Australian newspaper companies came to control the new commercial radio and television stations, journalist Colin Bednall referred to “media monsters”. Around 1990, British media commentator Anthony Smith wrote a book titled The Age of Behemoths, looking especially at the way large corporations such as News Corp had gone international.

But both were talking about media pygmies compared with the new mega-corporation owned by the Ellisons. Apart from their software business and extensive real estate holdings, they now have a central player, TikTok, in social media. They own two of the biggest five US movie studios, they have two of the biggest five streaming services, they have large entertainment producing corporations in Discovery, Warner Bros and CBS, and they own two of the most important TV news services – CBS and CNN.

This gives them the usual commercial advantages over smaller newcomers trying to break in. It also means the news services are owned by a conglomerate that has many other interests, including some that demand negotiation with the government.

In trying to understand the moment we are living through, it is often difficult to disentangle what is of momentary significance and what of lasting importance. What are egomaniacal histrionics that will fade into history with Trump? And which signal ongoing threats to the fabric of democratic institutions?

The unprecedented media empire built by the Ellisons will not disappear, no matter who wins the next election.

Rodney Tiffen does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Trump is remaking the US media in his own image – and smashing accountability with it – https://theconversation.com/trump-is-remaking-the-us-media-in-his-own-image-and-smashing-accountability-with-it-279107

March 26, 2026

A Bible Belt track without a pulse – it’s no surprise fans hate the 2026 FIFA World Cup song Lighter

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Brent Keogh, Lecturer in the School of Communications, University of Technology Sydney

The release of the first FIFA World Cup 2026 song Lighter by American country artist Jelly Roll, Mexican singer Carín León and Canadian producer Cirkut, has left an odd taste in the mouth of fans, like waking up in the back of a Chevy truck after accidentally downing a bottle of bargain-bin bourbon.

As the United States, Canada and Mexico prepare to host the World Cup in June, the change in genre from “world-infused” pop to Bible Belt-style country-rock reflects the awkwardness of the tournament being hosted in an increasingly isolationist America.

Themes of unity and diversity

Since the early 1990s, FIFA World Cup songs and anthems have usually reflected something of the local flavour of the host country while simultaneously promoting the ideals of global unity.

For example, the 2022 song Hayya Hayya promotes the ideal that “we are better together”. It vibrates with the rhythmic complexity of North African folk traditions, before moving into a more commercial reggae groove.

Jennifer Lopez and Pitbull’s 2014 song, We are One, incorporates Brazilian inflections in an otherwise characteristically in-your-face Pitbull dance track. Nevertheless, the global sentiment remains: “it’s your world, my world, our world today, and we invite the whole world, whole world to play”.

Similarly, Jason Derulo’s 2018 World Cup track Colors (also a Coca Cola promotional song), celebrates national pride – “I’m going to wave my flag” – while also declaring “there’s beauty in the unity we’ve found”.

Where is the excitement?

Though Lighter is a collaboration between the three host countries, it marks a significant musical shift from the characteristic European, Latino and “World” inflected pop of previous songs.

There have been other stylistic shifts in the past. The 2006 World Cup track was Time of Our Lives, a slow operatic pop ballad by Il Divo and Toni Braxton.

But Lighter isn’t another example of this. It isn’t a ballad – yet it still lacks the high energy buzz of fan favourites such as Shakira’s Waka Waka (2010 South Africa World Cup), Santana’s Dar Um Jeito (We Will Find a Way) (2014 Brazil World Cup) and Ricky Martin’s The Cup of Life (1998 France World Cup).

The usual rhythmic vitality of a World Cup song is stripped back to a country-rock dirge with an odd, almost tokenistic Spanish bridge – an offering that might more appropriately feature in a Trolls World Tour. Fans are not having it.

As one user in the YouTube comments asks: “La emoción, la pasión y el ritmo mundialista, dónde está todo eso?” (“The excitement, the passion and the World Cup rhythm, where is all that?”).

Roll between the Lord and the Devil

Lighter has also been criticised for its religious allusions. One listener bemoans: “It’s a football tournament, but let’s make a song about church choirs, Chevy trucks, chains and muddy boots”.

Although past World Cup songs have contained religious allusions, Lighter’s odd sense of the sacred is more like trying to pass off a Lord Elrond action figure as a statue of Saint Anthony.

The song is replete with the forced language of a sinner’s conversion (“chains don’t rattle no more”, “lay my burdens down”), as analogous to the flow-state of a footballer, free from whatever personal or collective trials that might have been holding them back.

As in many a good country song, the protagonist is involved in a cosmic battle for his soul.

Jelly Roll is “praying [his] way out of […] hell”. He even has a run in with the Devil, although he doesn’t trade his soul for musical talent. Rather, he escapes the Devil’s attempts to “catch” him as his boots have left the ground.

You could be forgiven for questioning whether this song was about football at all, or whether it is more reflective of Jelly Roll’s own personal conversion story (he has recently been open in proclaiming his faith in Jesus).

In Lighter, the collective “we” of previous World Cup songs has been replaced with the individualistic “I” – the local taking precedence over the global.

The elephant in the room

Now, to be fair, there are some aspects of Lighter that align with the values of its predecessors. One key theme of the song is the sense of the fight, of overcoming obstacles, and gaining individual freedom. This aligns with FIFA’s stated purpose of the song, which it says was “created for the most inclusive FIFA World Cup in history”.

However, with ICE agents likely to be haunting football stadiums like dementors – and strained relationships between the US and neighbours such as Venezuela, Mexico, Canada and Cuba (not to mention Iran) – it is questionable whether FIFA’s goals of inclusivity will be felt and realised.

Instead, Jelly Roll and Carín León’s country-rock tune seems to more accurately reflect the current US administration’s isolationist approach to global foreign policy: we know we’re in the world, but we’d rather not be.

Perhaps the next World Cup song in 2030 will bring back the excitement, passion and rhythm that fans love, and reiterate the globalist ideals of the game. For now, Lighter remains a missed penalty shot.

Brent Keogh does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. A Bible Belt track without a pulse – it’s no surprise fans hate the 2026 FIFA World Cup song Lighter – https://theconversation.com/a-bible-belt-track-without-a-pulse-its-no-surprise-fans-hate-the-2026-fifa-world-cup-song-lighter-279111

March 26, 2026

I went to CPAC and found Trump supporters unhappy about Iran, Epstein files and the economy, even while the fans at the MAGA conference celebrate his immigration policies

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Alex Hinton, Distinguished Professor of Anthropology; Director, Center for the Study of Genocide and Human Rights, Rutgers University – Newark

Attendees wearing MAGA merch stand next to an image of Trump at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Grapevine, Texas, on March 25, 2026. Leandro Lozada AFP/Getty Images

There is a pall over the Make America Great Again, or MAGA, movement. Donald Trump overpromised. His public support has fallen. Some “America First” die-hards now openly criticize him.

Amid war, economic challenges, democratic backsliding, the Epstein files and Americans shot dead in the street by government agents, Trump’s support is softening and his vow to bring a “golden age of America” is looking more like a political winter for Trump and his MAGA movement.

This is my big takeaway from this year’s annual Conservative Political Action Conference, or CPAC. The event, organized by the American Conservative Union, launched with an international summit on March 25, 2026, and runs through March 28 in Grapevine, Texas.

Don’t get me wrong. The attendees are decked out in red, white and blue MAGA merch: sequined “Trump” purses and jackets, USA flag bags, ties and headbands, and, of course, iconic red MAGA caps. As always, they chant “USA,” even if not as often or as loudly as before.

Starting with the first talk by Rev. Franklin Graham, speakers here are still singing Trump’s praises. They underscore what they regard as major Trump 2.0 accomplishments: combating illegal immigration, cutting taxes, a budding economic boom, deregulation, U.S. gas and oil output surging, administrative state winnowing, pro-Christian policies and pulling the plug on the “woke” agenda.

These issues are foregrounded in sessions with titles like “Walls Work,” “Don’t Let Woke Marxists Raise Your Children,” “MAGA vs. Mullah Madness,” “Commies Go Home” and “Cancelling Satan.” In between, pro-Trump advertisements checklist Trump’s accomplishments.

This rose-tinted view is to be expected. After all, CPAC – a cross between a political rally, networking mixer and MAGA Comic-Con – is all about galvanizing the conservative base. Beneath the surface, however, MAGA is churning.

A man wearing a skullcap with a photo of Donald Trump on it stands at a table in a conference hall. — An attendee visits a stand at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Grapevine, Texas, on March 26, 2026.
Leandro Lozada/AFP via Getty Images

Major grievances

An anthropologist of American political culture and author of the book “It Can Happen Here,” I have been studying MAGA for years and attending CPAC since 2023. Attendees at last year’s CPAC, held a month after Trump’s inauguration, were jubilant, with nonstop talk of “the comeback kid” and “the golden age.”

Why is the mood at this year’s CPAC more subdued?

Enthusiasm for Trump is dampened because some of his supporters feel he has betrayed America First principles, failed to fulfill key campaign promises and been unable to supercharge the economy. Here are their major grievances:

‘America First’ vs. ‘Israel First’

“America First” is the guiding principle of MAGA. It encompasses border security, prioritizing the U.S. economy and ensuring rights such as free speech. It also means avoiding unnecessary wars.

This is why Trump’s support of the June 2025 “12-day war” on Iran led Tucker Carlson, Marjorie Taylor Greene and other MAGA influencers, who have tens of millions of followers, to criticize Trump. The conflict, they contend, served Israel’s interest – their phrase is “Israel First” – not those of the U.S.

Their criticisms became even more pronounced after the U.S. again began bombing Iran on Feb. 28, 2026. The criticism is part of a growing MAGA fissure with pro-Israel stalwarts such as conservative activists Mark Levin, Laura Loomer and Ben Shapiro, who support U.S. intervention in the Middle East. Things got so bad that after Levin called his fellow conservative media personality Megyn Kelly “unhinged, lewd and petulant,” she dubbed him “Micropenis Mark.”

A man casually dressed in a t-shirt, plaid shirt over that, a black baseball cap and sunglasses stands in a convention center room. — Former Proud Boys chairman Enrique Tarrio is seen at CPAC in Grapevine, Texas, on March 25, 2026.
Leandro Lozada/AFP via Getty Images

But the MAGA unease with the war extends well beyond the “America First” influencers.

It includes figures from the fringe far right such as provocateur Nick Fuentes, center-right “brocaster” Joe Rogan, and even the Trump administration itself – as illustrated by an intelligence officer whose resignation stated, “Iran posed no imminent threat to our nation, and it is clear that we started this war due to pressure from Israel and its powerful American lobby.”

Notably, none of the main Trump critics have been scheduled to speak at this year’s CPAC. Some now call it “TPAC,” or the Trump Political Action Conference.

The Epstein files

MAGA also has a strong populist and anti-elite streak of conspiracy thinking.

Large numbers of Trump supporters, for example, believe there is an elite plot to what they call “replace” the white population with nonwhites through mass immigration. Many also bought into the QAnon conspiracy theory, which centers on the idea that Trump is fighting Satanic, deep state elites who are running a child sex trafficking operation.

On the campaign trail, Trump vowed to take down political, deep state and global elites. He also promised to release the Jeffrey Epstein files, which QAnon conspiracists and others believe prove elite debauchery, including pedophilia.

Trump didn’t deliver. He backtracked and stonewalled on the release of the Epstein files, raising MAGA suspicion that Trump himself is implicated or is protecting elites. Remarkably, one recent poll found that roughly half of Americans, including a quarter of Republicans, believe the Iran war was partly meant to distract from the Epstein files.

Economy and immigration

Trump is also facing headwinds on the bread-and-butter issues of the 2024 election: the economy and immigration.

At CPAC, speakers have repeatedly given him kudos for shutting down the border. Acknowledging the MAGA in-fighting, conservative commentator Benny Johnson said he wanted to “white pill” – or buck up – the audience by reminding them that Trump had stopped an “invasion” and brought “criminal alien border crossings down to zero.”

As a photo of Trump’s bloodied face after the assassination attempt in Butler, Pennsylvania, on July 13, 2024, was displayed, Johnson claimed, “Our God saved President’s Trump’s life for this moment.”

But fewer Republicans approve of his handling of immigration compared with a year ago. Like many Americans, a growing number have misgivings about the strong-arm tactics used by government immigration enforcement agents in places such as Minnesota.

For many, the economy remains a serious worry. A recent poll, conducted before the Iran war, found that the vast majority of Americans, including large numbers of Republicans, are concerned about inflation, jobs and the cost of living. Health care, including the lost Obamacare subsidies, is also a source of consternation.

Few people believe the economy is “booming” – let alone that a “golden age” has arrived – as Trump and his allies often proclaim. The war with Iran, which has led to stock market declines and gas pump hikes, has only added to the unease.

MAGA ‘shattered’?

Amid the recent MAGA in-fighting about the Iran war, conservative podcaster Tim Pool proclaimed, “The MAGA coalition is shattered.”

Not exactly. Despite the many challenges Trump is facing, the vast majority of his MAGA base voters still support him – including almost 90% backing his war with Iran.

But Trump’s support has eased in several ways. First, even his hardcore supporters worry about the economy, and they want him to declare victory and exit the war. And second, Trump has lost support on the edges. Many people in the key groups with which he made crucial inroads in the last election – such as young men and nonwhite voters – have turned from him. The same is true for independents and other Trump voters who don’t identify as MAGA.

Trumpism isn’t dead, as the MAGA-merched crowds here at CPAC make clear. But Trump is struggling through a political winter that could signal the early stages of his MAGA movement’s decline.

Alex Hinton receives funding from Alex Hinton receives funding from the Rutgers-Newark Sheila Y. Oliver Center for Politics and Race in America, Rutgers Research Council, and Henry Frank Guggenheim Foundation.

– ref. I went to CPAC and found Trump supporters unhappy about Iran, Epstein files and the economy, even while the fans at the MAGA conference celebrate his immigration policies – https://theconversation.com/i-went-to-cpac-and-found-trump-supporters-unhappy-about-iran-epstein-files-and-the-economy-even-while-the-fans-at-the-maga-conference-celebrate-his-immigration-policies-278856

March 26, 2026

Landmark lawsuit finds that social media addiction is a feature, not a bug

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Quynh Hoang, Lecturer in Marketing and Consumption, Department of Marketing and Strategy, University of Leicester

A Los Angeles jury has delivered a landmark verdict: Meta and YouTube were negligent in the design and operation of their platforms, causing a young woman known in court documents as Kaley, or KGM, to become addicted to social media.

The tech giants must now pay her a total of US$6 million in damages – $3 million compensatory and $3 million punitive.

She claimed the platforms’ design features got her addicted to the technology and exacerbated her depression, anxiety, body dysmorphia and suicidal thoughts.

The jury found that Meta bore 70% of the responsibility and YouTube 30%, meaning Meta will pay $4.2 million and Google’s YouTube $1.8 million. Both companies have said they will appeal.

The verdict came a day after a separate New Mexico jury ordered Meta to pay US$375 million for failing to protect children from predators on Instagram and Facebook.

Kaley filed her lawsuit in 2023, when she was 17. She claimed that she began using social media as a young child and alleged that features such as infinite scroll, autoplay, algorithmically timed notifications and beauty filters were addictive.

TikTok and Snap were originally named as defendants but settled before the trial began for undisclosed sums. Meta and YouTube proceeded to a seven-week trial in Los Angeles Superior Court.

The case is the first of three bellwether trials scheduled in the California state proceedings – test cases selected to gauge how juries respond to the core legal arguments – drawn from a pool of more than 1,600 plaintiffs, including over 350 families and 250 school districts.

The outcome of this first trial was always likely to have consequences far beyond one young woman’s case.

Bypassing big tech’s legal shield

The legal strategy that made this trial possible was a deliberate departure from previous attempts to sue social media companies. Historically, platforms have been shielded by Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act, which protects internet companies from liability for content posted by their users.

The plaintiff’s lawyers sidestepped this entirely by arguing that the harm arose not from what users posted, but from how the platforms were engineered – treating Instagram and YouTube as defective products rather than neutral publishers.

The jury heard internal Meta documents that proved damaging. One memo read: “If we wanna win big with teens, we must bring them in as tweens.” Another showed that 11-year-olds were four times as likely to keep returning to Instagram compared with competing apps, despite the platform’s own minimum age requirement of 13.

A former Meta engineering director turned whistleblower, Arturo Béjar, testified about how features like infinite scroll exploit the brain’s reward system. Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg himself took the stand – his first jury testimony on child safety – and was questioned about his decision to retain beauty filters despite internal research flagging their impact on young girls’ body image.

The jury rejected the companies’ central defence: that Kaley’s struggles were primarily the result of a difficult home life and pre-existing conditions rather than platform design.

In finding that the companies had acted with “malice, oppression or fraud”, they opened the door to the additional punitive damages that brought the total to US$6 million.

Both companies will appeal, and the process could take years. In the meantime, a second important trial is scheduled for this summer, and a separate federal case in Oakland involving school districts is also advancing. The pressure on platforms to settle the thousands of remaining cases will grow considerably.

Long-term impact?

For users, the immediate practical picture is less clear. Meta and YouTube are unlikely to make significant changes to their platforms while the appeals process plays out. Any redesign – if it comes – is likely to be incremental and carefully managed to minimise disruption to the engagement model that drives their revenues.

But there is a harder question the verdict does not answer: will it actually change anything? Meta and YouTube are companies worth hundreds of billions of dollars. A US$6 million damages award is not going to restructure the attention- and surveillance-driven economy.

My research on digital overuse – based on in-depth interviews with digital users and studies of online communities discussing digital overuse and detox – shows that even people who are fully aware of the problem and genuinely want to reduce their screen time find it extraordinarily difficult to do so.

This is not because they lack willpower, but because the features driving compulsive use are not bugs in the system. They are the system, built to maximise engagement and advertising revenue.

For years, big tech has placed the burden of managing screen time squarely on individuals and parents – encouraging screen time limits, digital detoxes, and parental controls while continuing to engineer products specifically designed to defeat exactly that kind of self-regulation.

The jury has pushed back against that logic. Whether courts, regulators, and legislators will push hard enough to force genuine structural redesign remains to be seen. However, the European Commission has already made the preliminary finding that TikTok’s addictive design features are in breach of the EU’s Digital Services Act.

What this verdict does, at minimum, is shift the ground. For the first time, a jury has confirmed what researchers have argued for years: this is not a story of weak willpower or bad parenting. It is, at least in part, a story of deliberate product design. That matters – even if the real fight is still to come.

Quynh Hoang does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Landmark lawsuit finds that social media addiction is a feature, not a bug – https://theconversation.com/landmark-lawsuit-finds-that-social-media-addiction-is-a-feature-not-a-bug-279390

March 26, 2026

Iran was always going to close the Strait of Hormuz

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Jonathan Este, Senior International Affairs Editor, Associate Editor, The Conversation

This is the text from The Conversation UK’s World Affairs Briefing email. Sign up here to receive weekly analysis of the latest developments in international relations, direct to your inbox.

The five-day deadline to open the Strait of Hormuz handed to Iran by Donald Trump on Monday expires some time tomorrow and the Islamic Republic needs to “get serious before it is too late” – or so the US president has announced on his TruthSocial platform.

You’ll recall that this deadline replaced another deadline which was due to expire on Monday night, after which the US and Israel would obliterate Iran’s power plants and plunge the country into darkness. Happily Trump pulled back from this plan, reporting that talks were progressing very well, so he would extend the deadline until March 27.

For their part, Iranian officials denied that negotiations were even underway, while US officials said contacts were at a very early stage. This has prompted speculation that the US president was seizing even the most informal of contacts as an “off ramp” to save face over not following through with his threat.

Certainly Trump’s oft-repeated assurance that the war in Iran has been won and that Iran’s senior officials (whoever remains after Israel’s highly successful campaign of assassinations) are “begging” the US to make a deal looks a rather optimistic assessment from the US president.

Far from collapsing in a heap after the death of the former supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, the regime is showing its resilience. Its targeting of US installations in the region are hurting the Gulf states and there are signs that Israel’s Iron Dome is fracturing in parts under the volume of Iranian missile attacks (this reportedly also happened during the 12-day war last year). Conservative estimates are that the war is costing the US and Israel more than US$1 billion £740 million) a day.

But it has been Iran’s ability to shut down traffic through the Strait of Hormuz that has arguably turned this into a world war, despite the unwillingness of many of America’s allies, particularly in Europe, to get involved. An estimated 20% of the world’s gas and oil transit the strait each day along with other vital supplies. Or at least it did before the end of February. Now very little is getting through and the consequences are being felt globally.

It’s not as if the US and Israel couldn’t anticipate that Iran would react to their attacks by closing down the strait. Arshin Adib-Moghaddam, an expert in Iranian history at the SOAS, University of London, walks us through nearly five decades in which Iran responded to every crisis by threatening to close the strait. Is is, he argues, a key plan in Iran’s security policy.

Meanwhile, it appears that the US is dusting off a 15-point peace plan it developed in May last year and which has already been rejected by Iran.

Critics say the chances of Iran acquiescing to the plan were negligible then and remain so now. It calls for Iran to give up all its uranium and agree to hand control of its civil nuclear programme to an outside panel. And, controversially, it seeks to control what Iran spends the money it gains if sanctions are relaxed.

This has prompted analysts to ask whether this plan was simply produced to give the US an explanation as to why it changed its mind over hitting Iran’s power plants. Bamo Nouri and Inderjeet Parmar, experts in international politics at City St George’s, University of London, think it the resurfacing of this plan is the strongest indication yet that Washington is beginning to fear that it has become embroiled in an unwinnable war.

Certainly this conflict has not gone the way Trump and his Israeli counterpart Benjamin Netanyahu might have wanted. But – as with the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, this should have been predictable. Jason Reifler, a political scientist at the University of Southampton, asserts that the US in particular, has embarked on this conflict with no clear goals or thought-through strategy.

Map of Straits of Hormuz — The Strait of Hormuz is one of the world’s most important waterways, with 20% of the global trade in oil flowing through a narrow maritime channel.
Wikimedia Commons

Failing to ask for authorisation via the United Nations (and for America, the the US congress) was a bad start, meaning the war had a legitimacy deficit from the word go. The reason for launching the conflict has veered from halting Iran’s nuclear programme to regime change and back again. And the strategy of assassinating Iran’s leadership has produced a rally-round-the-flag effect that few had anticipated.

Add to that the devastatingly effective use of drones by Iran (which the war planners in the US and Israel must surely have picked up on from the experience in Ukraine), means that the two countries are often forced to counter munitions worth US$20,000 with missiles worth millions of dollars. Meanwhile, the pain from Iran’s closure of the closing the strait will only get worse.

Holy war?

The US defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, held a religious service at the Pentagon yesterday, at which he called on god to “grant this task force clear and righteous targets for violence”. Hegseth appears to see this as a holy war in which he has clearly cast himself as a crusader, even sporting a tattoo reading, “Daus vult” (god wills it) – reportedly the rallying cry for the attempt to “liberate the Holy Land” in the 11th century.

Toby Matthiesen, senior lecturer in global religious studies at the University of Bristol observes here the way in which all parties to this conflict have used religion to garner support. Of course, claiming the approval of one’s chosen deity is a time-honoured tactic that even Nazi Germany tried. But it feels a little incongruous in the 21st century.

You could be forgiven for thinking that the sight of Donald Trump in the middle of a prayer huddle in the Oval Office was an amusing oddity. But Benjamin Netanyahu’s reference to the Old Testament story of the Amalekites, whom god told the children of Israel to annihilate, “men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys” is frankly chilling. Parts of the Islamic world has flocked to Iran’s defence (although not with particular enthusiasm in the Sunni countries of the Gulf, which Iran is bombarding with ballistic missiles).

Trang Chu and Tim Morris, meanwhile, believe that this conflict has been nearly five decades in the making. Just as Iran has always denied the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state, many people in the US and Israel have long been committed to the destruction of Iran as a theocracy. Accordingly the way the two sides talk about each other has hardened over the years. Language on each side no longer reflects a criticism of their adversary’s behaviours, it has become a verdict on their moral character.

So to Iranians, the US is the “Great Satan”, while Iran is described in America as part of an “axis of evil”. Our experts believe that, this language “not only describes the enemy, but actively participates in creating it”. The observe that once you start to think these sorts of things about your adversaries, the idea of engaging in negotiation tends to become secondary to the desire to simply defeat or destroy them. Which is terribly dangerous, as we’re seeing.

Sign up to receive our weekly World Affairs Briefing newsletter from The Conversation UK. Every Thursday we’ll bring you expert analysis of the big stories in international relations.

– ref. Iran was always going to close the Strait of Hormuz – https://theconversation.com/iran-was-always-going-to-close-the-strait-of-hormuz-279371

March 26, 2026

Dos familias para un nuevo imperio de lujo y belleza: ¿tiene lógica la fusión Puig-Estée Lauder?

Source: The Conversation – (in Spanish) – By Pedro Mir, Profesor de la Facultad de Económicas y Director Académico de ISEM Fashion Business School, Universidad de Navarra, Universidad de Navarra

La belleza de lujo –el segmento premium de la cosmética y la perfumería– mueve al año más de 130 000 millones de euros a nivel mundial y está dominada por un puñado de conglomerados, casi todos europeos. En ese tablero, Estée Lauder compite desde Nueva York, con unos 14 000 millones de dólares en ventas en 2025, y Puig, desde Barcelona, superó por primera vez los 5 000 millones en ese mismo año. Es en este escenario donde se inscribe la noticia que ha sacudido al sector esta semana: ambas empresas están negociando una fusión.

Seis días es el tiempo transcurrido entre el nombramiento de José Manuel Albesa como consejero delegado (el primero en más de dos décadas ajeno a la familia Puig) y la confirmación de las negociaciones. Con ese nombramiento, la empresa separó las funciones de consejero delegado de las de presidente y Marc Puig se mantiene en la presidencia ejecutiva, con un foco explícito en operaciones corporativas. No se trataba, pues, de un ajuste de gobernanza rutinario: se estaba preparando la sala de máquinas.

Las cifras son de vértigo: de la fusión saldría un grupo combinado valorado en unos 40 000 millones de dólares, con ingresos anuales cercanos a los 20 000 millones. La reacción bursátil fue reveladora: las acciones de Estée Lauder cayeron casi un 8 %, las de Puig subieron un 3 %. Los inversores leen riesgo de integración para el comprador y prima de oportunidad para el grupo español. La cuestión es si esa lectura es miope.

Dos carteras que se completan como un rompecabezas

Para entender esta operación hay que saber un solo dato: 17 %. Ese es el peso de los perfumes en los ingresos de Estée Lauder. Compárese con el 72 % de Puig, o con la posición de L’Oréal y LVMH, que en los últimos años han convertido la perfumería en su categoría de mayor crecimiento.

Estée Lauder tiene un hueco estructural en la categoría más dinámica de la belleza de lujo. Sus marcas de perfumería son exquisitas pero ocupan nichos minoritarios. Le falta la potencia de la perfumería masiva de gama alta, exactamente el terreno donde Puig tiene tres marcas entre las diez más vendidas del mundo.

El contexto amplifica la urgencia. La perfumería vive lo que Marc Puig ha denominado un superciclo posterior a la pandemia: los perfumes de autor crecen al 14,5 % anual, el gasto en fragancias entre jóvenes de la generación Z se disparó un 44 % en 2024, y el hábito del «guardarropa olfativo» ha multiplicado el gasto por cliente. Kering desembolsó 3 500 millones por Creed y L’Oréal acaba de adquirir la división de belleza de Kering por 4 700 millones. La consolidación del sector es una carrera por el control de los perfumes de lujo. Y Estée Lauder va tarde.

La ecuación funciona también en dirección contraria. El cuidado de la piel representa apenas un 10 % de los ingresos de Puig, y la región de Asia-Pacífico solo el 9 % de sus ventas. Estée Lauder, con el 49 % de su facturación en productos para la piel y el 32 % de ventas en Asia, ofrece exactamente la diversificación que Puig necesita para dar el salto de escala. El matiz es que esas cifras reflejan un negocio que no atraviesa su mejor momento: sus ventas en cuidado de la piel cayeron un 12 % el último año fiscal. Puig no estaría comprando un negocio en marcha, sino un negocio que necesita reconstrucción.

Dos familias ante el espejo

Más allá de las cifras, esta operación es un matrimonio dinástico. Puig y Estée Lauder comparten un rasgo estructural poco frecuente en la industria: ambas son empresas familiares que cotizan en bolsa, ambas están dirigidas ahora por ejecutivos ajenos a la familia fundadora, y ambas utilizan acciones con voto diferenciado que permiten a las dinastías retener el control con una participación económica minoritaria.

Es precisamente esta simetría la que hace viable la conversación y, al mismo tiempo, la que la complica. ¿Quién gobierna la entidad resultante? ¿Qué familia cede poder? El verdadero pulso estará en la letra pequeña de los derechos de voto y en quién ocupa la presidencia del consejo.

Los riesgos que nadie quiere oír

Hay una paradoja fundamental que atraviesa toda la operación: Puig y Estée Lauder no son iguales. En los últimos tiempos la empresa barcelonesa ha crecido al 7,8 % mientras Estée Lauder ha caído un 8 %. Fusionarse con un conglomerado de 57 000 empleados en plena reestructuración podría diluir exactamente lo que hace diferente a Puig.

El calendario también suscita dudas. Puig informó el mes pasado de una desaceleración en el crecimiento de sus perfumes durante el tercer trimestre, una señal de que el superciclo podría estar entrando en fase de maduración. Si la perfumería es la categoría que justifica esta fusión, cabe preguntarse si se está negociando cerca del pico del ciclo.

La pregunta correcta

En un sector donde Kering vende, L’Oréal compra y la consolidación avanza a ritmo acelerado, la fusión Puig-Estée Lauder no ocurre en el vacío sino en un tablero en reconfiguración. La pregunta no es si la operación tiene lógica industrial, pues la tiene, sino si dos organizaciones con culturas distintas pueden integrarse sin destruir lo que las hace valiosas por separado.

Puig tiene los perfumes que Estée Lauder necesita, Estée Lauder tiene la red mundial y el negocio de cuidado de la piel que Puig no puede construir solo. En la belleza, como en la perfumería, la mezcla perfecta sobre el papel no siempre queda bien sobre la piel.

Pedro Mir no recibe salario, ni ejerce labores de consultoría, ni posee acciones, ni recibe financiación de ninguna compañía u organización que pueda obtener beneficio de este artículo, y ha declarado carecer de vínculos relevantes más allá del cargo académico citado.

– ref. Dos familias para un nuevo imperio de lujo y belleza: ¿tiene lógica la fusión Puig-Estée Lauder? – https://theconversation.com/dos-familias-para-un-nuevo-imperio-de-lujo-y-belleza-tiene-logica-la-fusion-puig-estee-lauder-279280

March 26, 2026

¿Cómo saber si un estudiante ha aprendido, aunque use inteligencia artificial?

Source: The Conversation – (in Spanish) – By Presentación Ángeles Caballero García, Catedrática de Universidad. Métodos de Investigación y Diagnóstico en Educación. Facultad de Educación, Universidad Camilo José Cela

La irrupción de la inteligencia artificial generativa ha vuelto frágil el trinomio clásico de la evaluación universitaria “trabajo autónomo + actividades prácticas + examen final”. Hoy, un estudiante puede producir en minutos un informe bien estructurado y con tono académico.

Prohibir la IA o convertir la evaluación en una caza de trampas no arregla el problema de fondo: lo que está en cuestión no es la tecnología, sino cómo demostramos que hay aprendizaje real, autoría y pensamiento, más allá de un producto final pulido.

Un problema pedagógico

La evaluación apoyada en trabajo autónomo, práctica y examen acumulativos ya era débil antes de la IA: favorece la reproducción de contenidos, castiga el error como “fallo” (penalizando equivocaciones en lugar de integrarlos en el aprendizaje) y deja poco rastro del proceso de aprendizaje. La IA no crea este problema; lo visibiliza.

La evaluación que hoy necesita la educación superior no es una técnica concreta, sino un cambio de lógica y de paradigma. En lugar de preguntarse “¿Cómo se detecta si hay IA?”, habría que preguntarse “¿Qué evidencias demuestran que el estudiante ha aprendido y puede transferir lo aprendido?”. Recuadrar así el problema nos mueve del control a la calidad pedagógica y obliga a revisar qué entendemos por aprender, enseñar y evaluar.

Evaluar procesos y no resultados

¿Cómo evaluar de forma justa y más acorde con los nuevos tiempos? ¿Cómo asegurarnos que se adquieren capacidades y competencias necesarias? Podemos poner en práctica de otro tipo de tareas que permitan evaluar el razonamiento y asegurar la autoría de las respuestas, como defensas orales, microtareas de retroalimentación inmediata, entrevistas académicas o debates guiados.

Esta manera de evaluar también se puede aplicar en el caso de trabajos realizados en casa, recogiendo evidencias del proceso en distintas fases –borradores, revisiones, explicaciones, reflexiones– que permiten ver la evolución del aprendizaje.

En todos estos casos, la inteligencia artificial se integra de forma ética y transparente, pidiendo al estudiante que explique cómo la ha usado, qué aportó la herramienta y qué aportó él o ella, de modo que se pueda evaluar su pensamiento crítico, su capacidad para detectar errores y su criterio a la hora de tomar decisiones.

Microtareas de evaluación

Las “microtareas” son ejercicios muy breves en los que el estudiante explica qué haría ante una situación concreta y por qué, haciendo visible su razonamiento y su autoría.

Por ejemplo, ante un problema sencillo –como elegir la mejor estrategia para resolver un conflicto en un equipo– basta pedirle que explique los pasos que seguiría, cómo comprobaría la información (incluida la generada por IA) y por qué opta por una solución; así, la evaluación surge de su proceso de pensamiento, no de un examen.

Enfocarse al mundo real

Las tareas que se encarguen, tanto para el aula como para hacer en casa, deberían ser similares a las que afrontarán en la vida profesional: encarar problemas abiertos, casos reales o verosímiles, tantear múltiples soluciones y asumir restricciones éticas, sociales o profesionales, es decir, límites que condicionan cómo pueden actuar.

Por ejemplo, si deben proponer una solución para mejorar un servicio público, una restricción podría ser respetar la privacidad de los datos, cumplir una normativa profesional, ajustarse a un presupuesto concreto o garantizar que la propuesta no discrimina a ningún colectivo; estos límites obligan a tomar decisiones responsables, igual que en la vida real.

Evaluación dialógica y explicativa

Explicar y dialogar son parte del proceso de aprender. Por eso cobran fuerza en este planteamiento estrategias didácticas como las defensas orales, las entrevistas académicas, los debates guiados o la justificación de decisiones.

La oralidad permite verificar lo que se ha aprendido y lo que se ha comprendido, reducir desigualdades, evidenciar el pensamiento propio y reforzar la responsabilidad intelectual. Invita al estudiante a argumentar, aclarar sus dudas, defender sus ideas y mostrar cómo ha llegado a ellas.

Evaluar la metacognición

Los estudiantes pueden trabajar la metacognición cuando responden a preguntas como: ¿qué han aprendido? ¿Qué les ha costado más? ¿Qué errores cometieron? ¿Qué harían distinto? ¿Qué papel jugó la IA en mi proceso de aprendizaje?

Este tipo de preguntas refuerzan la autonomía, fortalecen la motivación y conectan la evaluación y el aprendizaje.

Evaluar el propio uso de la IA

Este currículum competencial no prohíbe la inteligencia artificial, sino que la integra críticamente. Esto se logra evaluando el criterio del estudiante cuando la usa. Al entregar una tarea, por ejemplo, podemos pedirle que incorpore una breve declaración de uso de esta herramienta dentro del propio trabajo –al final del documento, en un anexo o justo después de la actividad–.

En ese apartado, que podría titularse Uso de inteligencia artificial en mi proceso, explicaría cómo la ha utilizado y por qué, qué herramientas empleó, qué partes del trabajo fueron propias, qué decisiones tomó, qué límites puso y cómo verificó la información generada.

De este modo, la evaluación sigue centrada en el juicio, la reflexión y la responsabilidad del estudiante.

Evaluación formativa y justa

Finalmente, la evaluación debe ser formativa: es decir, debe orientar al estudiante. Para que la corrección o retroalimentación sea significativa tienen que ayudarle a mejorar.

En un modelo tradicional, la evaluación clasifica, actúa como un filtro: el estudiante realiza una tarea, recibe una nota y el proceso concluye ahí. La calificación funciona como una etiqueta que determina si “ha cumplido” o “no ha cumplido”, sin ofrecer información útil para mejorar, ni espacio para revisar errores; el mensaje implícito es que equivocarse tiene consecuencias negativas, pero no oportunidades de aprendizaje.

Una evaluación formativa transforma ese mismo momento en un proceso orientador: el docente analiza el trabajo, señala los aciertos, identifica con claridad qué aspectos pueden fortalecerse y explica cómo hacerlo, de modo que el estudiante comprende qué ha aprendido y qué pasos puede dar para avanzar y mejorar, lo que convierte la evaluación en un acompañamiento continuo. Así, en lugar de cerrar caminos, la evaluación se convierte en un recurso que abre posibilidades, fortalece la comprensión y ayuda a aprender mejor.

Un aprendizaje visible

En síntesis, evaluar en tiempos de la IA nos obliga a indagar cómo el estudiante piensa, decide, se equivoca, aprende y actúa con criterio. Supone pasar de certificar productos (exámenes, trabajos) a hacer visible el aprendizaje, de medir respuestas a comprender procesos, de penalizar el error a reconocerlo como evidencia de pensamiento.

Porque cuando el atajo es perfecto, lo verdaderamente transformador no es prohibirlo, sino atrevernos a cambiar el camino.

Presentación Ángeles Caballero García no recibe salario, ni ejerce labores de consultoría, ni posee acciones, ni recibe financiación de ninguna compañía u organización que pueda obtener beneficio de este artículo, y ha declarado carecer de vínculos relevantes más allá del cargo académico citado.

– ref. ¿Cómo saber si un estudiante ha aprendido, aunque use inteligencia artificial? – https://theconversation.com/como-saber-si-un-estudiante-ha-aprendido-aunque-use-inteligencia-artificial-276430

March 26, 2026

El fin de la diversidad prometida: la nueva arquitectura étnica del régimen chino

Source: The Conversation – (in Spanish) – By Antonio César Moreno Cantano, Doctor en Historia Contemporánea, Universidad Complutense de Madrid

El 12 de marzo de 2026, la Asamblea Nacional Popular de China aprobó la Ley de Promoción de la Unidad y el Progreso Étnico, una normativa que consolida y legaliza la política asimilacionista del presidente Xi Jinping hacia las 55 minorías étnicas del país.

La ley, descrita como “fundamental y comprehensiva en el ámbito del trabajo étnico”, representa un giro radical respecto a las garantías de autonomía cultural que China prometió durante décadas.

La homogeneización forzada

La nueva legislación establece el mandarín como lengua principal de enseñanza en todos los centros educativos, reemplazando progresivamente la educación de lenguas maternas como el uigur, el mongol o el tibetano. Como señala Yalkun Uluyol, investigador de Human Rights Watch, esta ley constituye un “cambio radical” respecto a la política de la era de Deng Xiaoping, cuando se garantizaba a las minorías el derecho a utilizar sus propias lenguas.

El Artículo 15 de la ley establece que los centros educativos deberán utilizar el mandarín como principal medio de instrucción, mientras que las lenguas maternas solo podrán estudiarse como una asignatura independiente. La ley acelerará la represión sistemática contra las minorías étnicas, particularmente en el Tíbet y la región noroccidental de Xinjiang.

Durante sus recientes visitas al Tíbet, Xi Jinping elogió los esfuerzos de las autoridades locales para contener el “separatismo” y participó en ceremonias en escuelas residenciales que promueven la educación en mandarín.

Esta normativa proporcionará una justificación legal de facto para los esfuerzos de reubicación forzada en Xinjiang. Las autoridades chinas ya han traslado coercitivamente a miles de uigures hacia el interior del país como fuente de trabajo forzado o como método para diluir su influencia política. Estas prácticas se suman a la represión previa en Xinjiang, que incluye prisión masiva, esterilización forzada y programas de “reeducación” destinados a destruir las prácticas culturales y religiosas centenarias.

El profesor Allen Carlson, experto en política china de la Universidad de Cornell (EE. UU.), advierte que “la ley Promoción de la Unidad Étnica y el Progreso afianzará aún más esta tendencia al hacer mayor hincapié en la asimilación”. “La ley deja más claro que nunca que en la República Popular China del presidente Xi Jinping los pueblos deben esforzarse más por integrarse con la mayoría Han y, sobre todo, ser leales a Beijing”, añade.

La criminalización de la identidad étnica

Más allá de las restricciones lingüísticas, se introducen disposiciones que criminalizan actividades consideradas separatistas o de extremismo religioso. La normativa permite procesar a los padres que transmitan a sus hijos opiniones “perjudiciales para la unidad y el progreso étnico”. Se prohíbe a las familias minoritarias impedir matrimonios basados en la identidad étnica, una táctica destinada a disolver las comunidades étnicas en la mayoría Han.

Este género de medidas demuestran que la evolución de la política étnica en China ha experimentado un giro radical, pasando de la autocrítica histórica a una asimilación coercitiva justificada por la seguridad nacional.

En 1981, bajo el liderazgo de Deng Xiaoping, el Partido Comunista de China emitió una resolución histórica que admitía explícitamente haber cometido un “grave error” al no mostrar el debido respeto por el derecho a la autonomía de las minorías, especialmente durante la violencia de la Revolución Cultural. Sin embargo, la dirección actual bajo Xi Jinping ha abandonado este remordimiento en favor de un control a toda costa, motivado por el temor a que la diversidad étnica política provoque un colapso estatal similar al de la Unión Soviética, que el PCCh atribuye a la pérdida de control sobre los territorios periféricos.

Este cambio de paradigma se apoya en una nueva arquitectura ideológica donde el concepto de “mezclado” (jiaorong) ha pasado de ser un tema de debate a un dogma central. Intelectuales influyentes, como el historiador Xu Jilin, han reforzado esta postura al citar el modelo de Estados Unidos.

Xu argumenta que el poder del sistema estadounidense no emana de su diversidad, sino de una cohesión social mantenida históricamente por el dominio de la cultura anglosajona. Según esta interpretación, las políticas de identidad contemporáneas y el énfasis en la raza son amenazas directas a la estabilidad nacional, una lección que Beijing ha interiorizado para justificar la supresión de identidades competitivas en regiones como Xinjiang, Tíbet y Mongolia Interior.

Desmantelando antiguos compromisos

En consecuencia, el Estado ya no busca movilizar a las minorías para la revolución, sino controlar a la población mediante la homogeneización lingüística y cultural, desmantelando las promesas de autonomía de las constituciones de 1954 y 1982 para asegurar una lealtad absoluta al poder central.

Lo que desde Occidente se identifica como una fase de asimilación forzada, el marco de gobernanza chino lo define como un proceso de experimentación institucional bajo el paraguas del Partido, orientado a fortalecer la resiliencia nacional frente a las tensiones geopolíticas y asegurar la sostenibilidad de un modelo que prioriza la unidad de mando sobre cualquier fragmentación de identidad periférica.

La ley de “unidad étnica” china constituye, en definitiva, un salto cualitativo en la política de asimilación forzada, transformando políticas dispersas en un marco legal único que amenaza la supervivencia misma de las culturas minoritarias en el país.

Antonio César Moreno Cantano no recibe salario, ni ejerce labores de consultoría, ni posee acciones, ni recibe financiación de ninguna compañía u organización que pueda obtener beneficio de este artículo, y ha declarado carecer de vínculos relevantes más allá del cargo académico citado.

– ref. El fin de la diversidad prometida: la nueva arquitectura étnica del régimen chino – https://theconversation.com/el-fin-de-la-diversidad-prometida-la-nueva-arquitectura-etnica-del-regimen-chino-278476

March 26, 2026

Cómo las especies invasoras remodelan silenciosamente los ecosistemas

Source: The Conversation – (in Spanish) – By Elena Angulo, Científico titular del CSIC, Estación Biológica de Doñana (EBD-CSIC)

Introducidas en las islas, las cabras pueden alterar el paisaje en detrimento de las especies locales. Eduardo Bena/Shutterstock

Cuando se mencionan las invasiones biológicas, solemos pensar en un duelo dramático: un depredador foráneo que llega para erradicar a una presa nativa. Sin embargo, este enfoque en la extinción directa oculta una realidad mucho más insidiosa. Gran parte de las invasiones más devastadoras no se limitan a eliminar especies; remodelan el entorno alterando los hábitats, reconfigurando las interacciones y modificando los procesos de una forma que no se puede reflejar únicamente en las listas de especies invasoras.

Tomemos como ejemplo las cabras o los conejos –que alteran desde la dispersión de semillas hasta la capacidad de reforestación natural–, introducidos en islas de todo el planeta. Aunque su voracidad puede, efectivamente, llevar a la flora local a la extinción, su impacto cala más hondo. Estos herbívoros invasores despejan el sotobosque, aceleran la erosión y modifican los regímenes de incendios, dejando cicatrices en el paisaje mucho después de que los rebaños hayan desaparecido. Estos trastornos sistémicos amenazan la biodiversidad de forma tan profunda como la pérdida de una sola especie.

Por eso, a la hora de evaluar el impacto de las invasiones biológicas no basta con considerar únicamente sus efectos en la flora y fauna nativas como hace la clasificación del impacto ambiental de taxones exóticos (EICAT, por sus siglas en inglés) de la Unión Internacional para la Conservación de la Naturaleza. Como advertimos en un reciente estudio, generan un espectro de impactos que se extiende mucho más allá.

Ingenieros de los ecosistemas

Hemos catalogado 19 tipos distintos de impactos ambientales. 12 de ellos afectan a niveles superiores al de la especie: las comunidades, el funcionamiento de los ecosistemas o las condiciones abióticas, tales como el ciclo de los nutrientes, la estructura del hábitat o las propiedades físicas del suelo y del agua.

La omisión de estos efectos es crítica porque muchas especies invasoras actúan como “ingenieros de los ecosistemas”. No se limitan a habitar un entorno, sino que lo modifican activamente, influyendo en el destino de comunidades enteras. Por ejemplo, los conejos, al igual que ciertas hormigas, transforman el ecosistema que invaden de manera total, desde el suelo y la vegetación hasta la fauna.

Para capturar este matiz, hemos desarrollado una herramienta de evaluación complementaria: EEICAT, la clasificación extendida del impacto ambiental de las invasiones biológicas.

Del invasor a la invasión

EEICAT es una evolución: aporta una expansión necesaria a las evaluaciones de impacto. Basada en el modelo EICAT, desplaza la unidad de evaluación de la especie invasora al evento de invasión.

Bajo este nuevo marco, ahora se pueden tener en cuenta los 19 tipos de impactos, y a una población invasora se le pueden asignar una o varias categorías de gravedad en cualquier nivel ecológico. Con EEICAT, podemos revelar los efectos sobre las especies nativas, las comunidades, los procesos e incluso las condiciones abióticas del ecosistema. Se trata de un enfoque basado en cada invasión, y no en el invasor de forma global.

La necesidad de esta distinción es evidente en los ecosistemas acuáticos invadidos por el mejillón cebra (Dreissena spp.). En innumerables lagos y ríos, estos moluscos amenazan a las poblaciones de mejillones nativos mediante la competencia y la bioincrustación (su acumulación), un impacto clásico bien recogido por las evaluaciones estándar. Pero simultáneamente, transforman el ecosistema acuático en sí mismo: al filtrar partículas, reducen la turbidez, alteran los ciclos de nutrientes y desencadenan cambios en cascada en la vegetación y en las redes tróficas. EEICAT nos permite mapear tanto el golpe directo a la biodiversidad como la reingeniería sistémica del lago o del río.

Muchos mejillones de cebra formando un aglomerado en la orilla del mar — Mejillones cebra.
Sam Stukel (USFWS)/Flickr

Leer más:
Especies invasoras: sus efectos positivos no son un argumento para su indulto

Una lógica similar se aplica al medio terrestre. La hormiga argentina (Linepithema humile) es tristemente célebre por eliminar a las hormigas nativas, simplificando las comunidades hasta convertirlas en ciudades fantasma donde, prácticamente, solo habita esta especie invasora. Pero su influencia es mucho más profunda. Al perturbar los mutualismos entre plantas e insectos, estas invasoras alteran la dispersión de semillas, la polinización, los ensamblajes de invertebrados e incluso los procesos del suelo. Estos efectos indirectos a nivel ecosistémico varían considerablemente según el clima y la integridad del ecosistema receptor.

Leer más:
¿Y si llevamos una hormiga loca en la maleta?

Dos hormigas juntan sus bocas mientras la cabeza de otra aparece un poco más abajo — Hormigas argentinas intercambiando fluidos (trofalaxia).
Davefoc/Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA

El contexto lo es todo

El reino vegetal ofrece, quizás, el argumento más claro a favor de este enfoque. Las especies de acacia, introducidas en todo el mundo, manifiestan su influencia de maneras radicalmente distintas. En Sudáfrica, actúan como supresores agresivos de la flora nativa y transformadores de la química del suelo mediante el enriquecimiento de nitrógeno. En la Europa mediterránea, la misma especie puede ejercer una presión competitiva moderada, pero modificar profundamente los regímenes de incendios, la acumulación de hojarasca y la hidrología.

Árbol con flores amarillas en un paisaje verde con un muro de piedra — La mimosa (*Acacia dealbata*) es una especie autraliana que se ha establecido en otras partes del mundo y se comporta como especie invasora, por ejemplo, en Galicia y el norte de Portugal.
Certo Xornal/Wikimedia Commons, CC BY

Adoptar EEICAT no significa reinventar la rueda. Podemos apoyarnos en las décadas de estudios de impacto que ya existen. Este marco recoge un conjunto más amplio de categorías que abarcan los niveles biológico, ecosistémico y abiótico. Utiliza los mismos cinco niveles de gravedad, desde Preocupación Mínima hasta Impacto Masivo, y con las mismas reglas de decisión.

Debido a que esta metodología se basa en la invasión, nos permite rastrear cómo una misma especie se comporta de manera diferente según la región, o cómo varios invasores acumulan su presión sobre un mismo ecosistema.

Gestionar la realidad, no solo las especies

Al adoptar el marco EEICAT, podemos finalmente capturar toda la magnitud de los efectos de las invasiones biológicas en los ecosistemas y adaptar las estrategias de gestión a las realidades complejas del mundo vivo, invasión por invasión.

Las invasiones biológicas no se resumen solo en la pérdida de especies; son también una reescritura silenciosa de los ecosistemas. Desde la química del suelo hasta la frecuencia de los incendios forestales, sus impactos resuenan en el medio ambiente mucho después de su llegada.

Elena Angulo recibe fondos de la Junta de Andalucía, proyectos de Excelencia.

Franck Courchamp recibe fondos de AXA Research Fund.

Laís Carneiro recibe fondos de AXA Research Fund.

– ref. Cómo las especies invasoras remodelan silenciosamente los ecosistemas – https://theconversation.com/como-las-especies-invasoras-remodelan-silenciosamente-los-ecosistemas-278731