La plupart des navigateurs proposent une « navigation privée », souvent perçue comme un moyen de surfer anonymement. Pourtant, ce mode ne garantit pas l’anonymat en ligne, et de nombreux internautes surestiment sa portée.
La navigation privée permet d’éviter que quelqu’un d’autre ayant accès à votre ordinateur voie vos activités en ligne a posteriori. C’est utile, par exemple, sur un ordinateur public ou partagé, pour ne pas laisser d’identifiants enregistrés ni d’historique compromettant.
Cependant, il est important de comprendre que cette confidentialité est avant tout locale (sur votre appareil). Le mode privé n’implique pas de naviguer de façon anonyme sur le réseau Internet lui-même. Il ne s’agit pas d’un « bouclier d’invisibilité » vis-à-vis des sites web visités, de votre fournisseur d’accès à Internet (FAI), ou de votre employeur.
Des études confirment les limites techniques du mode privé. Des traces subsistent malgré la fermeture de la session, en contradiction avec ce qu’affirme la documentation du navigateur. Une analyse sur Android a révélé que la mémoire vive conserve des données sensibles : mots-clés, identifiants, cookies, récupérables même après redémarrage.
Le mode privé ne bloque pas les cookies publicitaires, il les supprime simplement en fin de session. Lorsqu’on revient sur un site dans une nouvelle session privée, celui-ci ne « se souvient » pas des choix précédents : il faut donc souvent redéfinir ses préférences (accepter ou refuser les cookies). Les bannières de consentement aux cookies, bien connues des internautes européens depuis l’entrée en vigueur du Règlement général sur la protection des données (RGPD) et de la directive ePrivacy, réapparaissent donc systématiquement. La fatigue du consentement pousse de nombreux internautes à tout accepter sans lire.
Quelles alternatives pour se protéger réellement ?
Le mode privé ne suffit pas à garantir l’anonymat en ligne. Pour mieux protéger sa vie privée, il faut combiner plusieurs outils.
Un VPN (virtual private network ou réseau privé virtuel, en français) crée un tunnel sécurisé entre votre appareil et Internet, permettant de naviguer de façon plus confidentielle en chiffrant vos données et en masquant votre adresse IP. En 2024, 19 % des utilisateurs de VPN français souhaitent avant tout cacher leur activité, et 15 % protéger leurs communications.
Un navigateur comme Tor va plus loin : il rebondit vos requêtes via plusieurs relais pour masquer totalement votre identité. C’est l’outil préféré des journalistes ou militants, mais sa lenteur peut décourager un usage quotidien. Des alternatives comme Brave ou Firefox Focus proposent des modes renforcés contre les traqueurs, tandis que des extensions comme uBlock Origin ou Privacy Badger bloquent efficacement pubs et trackers. Ces extensions sont compatibles avec les principaux navigateurs comme Chrome, Firefox, Edge, Opera et Brave.
Il est aussi essentiel d’adopter une hygiène numérique : gérer les cookies, limiter les autorisations, préférer des moteurs comme DuckDuckGo, qui ne stockent pas vos recherches, ne vous profile pas et bloque automatiquement de nombreux traqueurs, et éviter de centraliser ses données sur un seul compte. En ligne, la vraie confidentialité repose sur une approche globale, proactive et éclairée.
Sabrine Mallek ne travaille pas, ne conseille pas, ne possède pas de parts, ne reçoit pas de fonds d’une organisation qui pourrait tirer profit de cet article, et n’a déclaré aucune autre affiliation que son organisme de recherche.
Lorsque l’ancien champion du monde d’échecs Vladimir Kramnik a laissé entendre qu’Hikaru Nakamura, l’un des meilleurs joueurs du monde actuellement, trichait sur la plateforme en ligne Chess.com, un statisticien a été appelé pour enquêter.
C’est pourtant ce qui s’est passé l’été dernier. Erik Allebest, PDG du plus grand site d’échecs en ligne au monde, Chess.com, m’a demandé d’enquêter sur les allégations de l’ancien champion du monde d’échecs Vladimir Kramnik concernant les longues séries de victoires d’un des meilleurs joueurs du monde, l’Américain Hikaru Nakura.
Kramnik a déclaré que ces séries avaient une très faible probabilité de se produire et qu’elles étaient donc très suspectes. Il n’a pas formellement accusé Hikaru de tricherie, mais le sous-entendu était clair. Sur Internet, les esprits se sont vite échauffés : les partisans de Kramnik postant des commentaires virulents (souvent en russe) sur cette présumée tricherie, tandis que de nombreux joueurs de Chess.com et partisans d’Hikaru rejetaient les accusations.
Qui a raison ? Qui a tort ? Est-il possible de trancher ?
Erik Allebest m’a demandé de réaliser une analyse statistique indépendante et impartiale pour déterminer le degré d’improbabilité de ces séries de victoires.
Le calcul de probabilités
Pour résoudre ce problème, j’ai d’abord dû calculer la probabilité que chaque joueur gagne ou fasse match nul dans chaque partie. Les joueurs peuvent avoir des niveaux de jeu très différents. Les meilleurs ont évidemment plus de chances de vaincre des adversaires moins expérimentés. Mais à quel point ?
Chess.com attribue un classement à chaque joueur qui varie après chaque partie, et ces notes m’ont été communiquées. Mon analyse a suggéré qu’un modèle mathématique pouvait fournir une estimation précise des probabilités de victoire, de défaite ou de nulle pour chaque partie.
En outre, les écarts par rapport à cette probabilité dans les résultats de parties successives étaient approximativement indépendants, de sorte que l’influence d’une partie sur la suivante pouvait être ignorée en toute sécurité. J’ai ainsi obtenu une probabilité claire que chaque joueur gagne (ou perde) chaque partie.
Je pouvais alors analyser ces séries de victoires qui avaient provoqué tant de débats enflammés. Il s’est avéré qu’Hikaru Nakamura, contrairement à la plupart des autres joueurs de haut niveau, avait joué de nombreuses parties contre des joueurs beaucoup plus faibles. Cela lui donnait donc une très grande probabilité de gagner chaque partie. Mais malgré cela, est-il normal d’observer de si longues séries de victoires, parfois plus de 100 parties d’affilée ?
Tester le caractère aléatoire
Pour le vérifier, j’ai effectué ce que l’on appelle des simulations de Monte Carlo, qui répètent une expérience en intégrant des variations aléatoires.
J’ai codé des programmes informatiques pour attribuer au hasard des victoires, des défaites et des nuls à chaque partie d’Hikaru Nakamura, selon les probabilités de mon modèle. J’ai demandé à l’ordinateur de mesurer à chaque fois les séries de victoires les plus surprenantes (les moins probables). Cela m’a permis de mesurer comment les séries réelles d’Hikaru pouvaient se comparer aux prédictions.
J’ai constaté que dans de nombreuses simulations, les résultats simulés comprenaient des séries tout aussi « improbables » que les séries réelles.
Cela démontre que les résultats d’Hikaru aux échecs étaient à peu près conformes à ce que l’on pouvait attendre. Il avait une telle probabilité de gagner chaque partie, et avait joué tellement de parties sur Chess.com, que des séries de victoires aussi longues étaient susceptibles d’émerger selon les règles des probabilités.
Les réponses à mes découvertes
J’ai rédigé un bref rapport à propos de mes recherches et l’ai envoyé à Chess.com.
Le site a publié un article, qui a suscité de nombreux commentaires, pour la plupart favorables.
Nakamura a ensuite publié son propre commentaire en vidéo, soutenant également mon analyse. Pendant ce temps, Kramnik a publié une vidéo de 29 minutes critiquant mes recherches.
Ce dernier ayant soulevé quelques points importants, j’ai rédigé un addendum à mon rapport pour répondre à ses préoccupations et montrer qu’elles n’avaient pas d’incidence sur la conclusion. J’ai également converti mon rapport en un article scientifique que j’ai soumis à une revue de recherche.
Puis je me suis ensuite consacré à mes tâches d’enseignant et j’ai laissé de côté les controverses sur les échecs jusqu’à ce que je reçoive une réponse de plus de six pages en décembre dernier. Il s’agissait de trois rapports d’arbitres et de commentaires d’éditeurs de la revue dans laquelle j’avais soumis mon article scientifique.
J’ai également découvert que Kramnik avait posté une deuxième vidéo de 59 minutes critiquant mon addendum et soulevant d’autres points.
J’ai tenu compte des points supplémentaires soulevés par Kramnik et par les arbitres tout en révisant mon article en vue de sa publication. Il a finalement été publié dans Harvard Data Science Review.
J’étais heureux de voir mes résultats publiés dans une prestigieuse revue de statistiques, ce qui leur conférait un sceau d’approbation officiel. Et peut-être, enfin, de régler cette controverse sur les échecs au plus haut niveau.
Jeffrey S. Rosenthal reçoit des fonds de recherche du CRSNG du Canada, mais n’a reçu aucune compensation de Chess.com ou de qui que ce soit d’autre pour ce travail.
Spurred on by hashtags and usernames indicating these feats involve steroids, soon Mark is online, ordering his first “steroid cycle”. No script, no warnings, just vials in the mail and the promise of “gains”.
A few weeks later, he’s posting progress shots and getting tagged as #MegaMark. He’s pleased. But what if I told you Mark was unknowingly injecting toxic chemicals?
In our new research we tested products sold in Australia’s underground steroid market and found many were mislabelled or missing the expected steroid entirely.
Even more concerning, several contained heavy metals such as lead, arsenic and cadmium. These substances are known to cause cancer, heart disease and organ failure.
What are anabolic steroids, and who is using them?
Anabolic steroids are synthetic drugs designed to mimic the effects of testosterone. Medical professionals sometimes prescribe them for specific health conditions (for example, hypogonadism, where the body isn’t making enough sex hormones). But they are more commonly taken by people looking to increase muscle size, improve athletic performance, or elevate feelings of wellbeing.
In Australia, it’s illegal to possess steroids without a prescription. This offence can attract large fines and prison terms (up to 25 years in Queensland).
Despite this, they’re widely available online and from your local “gym bro”. So it’s not surprising we’re seeing escalating use, particularly among young men and women.
People usually take steroids as pills and capsules or injectable oil- or water-based products. But while many people assume these products are safe if used correctly, they’re made outside regulated settings, with no official quality checks.
For this new study, we analysed 28 steroid products acquired from people all over Australia which they’d purchased either online or from peers in the gym. These included 16 injectable oils, ten varieties of oral tablets, and two “raw” powders.
An independent forensic lab tested the samples for active ingredients, contaminants and heavy metals. We then compared the results against what people thought they were taking.
More than half of the samples were mislabelled or contained the wrong drug. For example, one product labelled as testosterone enanthate (200mg/mL) contained 159mg/mL of trenbolone (a potent type of steroid) and no detectable testosterone. Oxandrolone (also known as “Anavar”, another type of steroid) tablets were sold claiming a strength of 10mg but actually contained 6.8mg, showing a disparity in purity.
Just four products matched their expected compound and purity within a 5% margin.
But the biggest concern was that all steroids we analysed were contaminated with some level of heavy metals, including lead, arsenic and cadmium.
While all of the concentrations we detected were within daily exposure limits regarded as safe by health authorities, more frequent and heavier use of these drugs would quickly see people who use steroids exceed safe thresholds. And we know this happens.
If consumed above safe limits, research suggests lead can damage the brain and heart. Arsenic is a proven carcinogen, having been linked to the development of skin, liver and lung cancers.
People who use steroids often dose for weeks or months, and sometimes stack multiple drugs, so these metals would build up. This means long‑term steroid use could be quietly fuelling cognitive decline, organ failure, and even cancer.
What needs to happen next?
Heavy metals such as lead, arsenic and cadmium often contaminate anabolic steroid products because raw powders sourced from some manufacturers, particularly those in China, may be produced with poor quality control and impure starting materials. These metals can enter the supply chain during synthesis, handling, or from contaminated equipment and solvents, leading to their presence in the final products.
Steroid use isn’t going away, so we need to address the potential health harms from these contaminants.
While pill testing is now common at festivals for drugs such as ecstasy, testing anabolic steroids requires more complex chemical analysis that cannot be conducted on-site. Current steroid testing relies on advanced laboratory techniques, which limits availability mostly to specialised research programs such as those in Australia and Switzerland.
We need to invest properly in a national steroid surveillance and testing network, which will give us data‑driven insights to inform targeted interventions.
We also need to see peer‑led support through trusted programs to educate people who use steroids around the risks. The programs should be based in real evidence, and developed by people with lived experience of steroid use, in partnership with researchers and clinicians.
Timothy Piatkowski receives funding from Queensland Mental Health Commission. He is affiliated with Queensland Injectors Voice for Advocacy and Action as the Vice President. He is affiliated with The Loop Australia as the research lead (Queensland).
Australia has joined 28 international partners in calling for an immediate end to the war in Gaza and a lifting of all restrictions on food and medical supplies.
Foreign Minister Penny Wong, along with counterparts from countries including the United Kingdom, France and Canada, has signed a joint statement demanding Israel complies with its obligations under international humanitarian law.
The statement condemns Israel for what it calls “the drip feeding of aid and the inhumane killing of civilians” seeking “their most basic need” of water and food, saying:
The suffering of civilians in Gaza has reached new depths. The Israeli government’s aid delivery model is dangerous, fuels instability and deprives Gazans of human dignity […] It is horrifying that over 800 Palestinians have been killed while seeking aid.
Weapon of war
Gazans, including malnourished mothers denied baby formula, face impossible choices as Israel intensifies its use of starvation as a weapon of war.
In Gaza, survival requires negotiating what the United Nations calls aid “death traps”.
According to the UN, 875 Gazans have been killed – many of them shot – while seeking food since the US-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation began operating in late May. Another 4,000 have been injured.
Gaza has been described as the “hungriest place on Earth”, with aid trucks being held at the border and the United States destroying around 500 tonnes of emergency food because it was just out of date.
More than two million people are at critical risk of famine. The World Food Programme estimates 90,000 women and children require urgent treatment for malnutrition.
Nineteen Palestinians have starved to death in recent days, according to local health authorities.
We can’t say we didn’t know
After the breakdown of the January ceasefire, Israel implemented a humanitarian blockade on the Gaza Strip. Following mounting international pressure, limited aid was permitted and the controversial Gaza Humanitarian Foundation began operations.
As anticipated, only a fraction of the aid has been distributed.
About 1,600 trucks entered Gaza between May 19 and July 14, well below the 630 trucks needed every day to feed the population.
Israeli ministers have publicly called for food and fuel reserves to be bombed to starve the Palestinian people – a clear war crime – to pressure Hamas to release Israeli hostages.
Famine expert Alex De Waal says Israel’s starvation strategy constitutes a dangerous weakening of international law. It also disrupts norms aimed at preventing hunger being used as a weapon of war:
operations like the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation are a big crack in these principles [that is] not going to save Gaza from mass starvation.
Palestinian organisations were the first to raise the alarm over Israel’s plans to impose controls over aid distribution.
UN Relief Chief Tom Fletcher briefed the UN Security Council in May, warning of the world’s collective failure to call out the scale of violations of international law as they were being committed:
Israel is deliberately and unashamedly imposing inhumane conditions on civilians in the occupied Palestinian territory.
Tom Fletcher briefing the United Nations on the ‘atrocity’ being committed in Gaza.
Since then, clear and unequivocal warnings of the compounding risks of genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing have intensified from the UN, member states and international law experts.
Weaponising aid
The Gaza Humanitarian Foundation claims it has handed out millions of meals since it began operating in the strip in May. But the UN has called the distribution model “inherently unsafe”.
Near-daily shootings have occurred since the militarised aid hubs began operating. Malnourished Palestinians risking death to feed their families are trekking long distances to reach the small number of distribution sites.
While the foundation denies people are being shot, the UN has called the aid delivery mechanism a “deliberate attempt to weaponise aid” that fails to comply with humanitarian principles and risks further war crimes.
Jewish Physicians for Human Rights has rejected the aid’s “humanitarian” characterisation, stating it “is what systematic harm to human beings looks like”.
Human rights and legal organisations are calling for all involved to be held accountable for complicity in war crimes that “exposes all those who enable or profit from it to real risk of prosecution”.
Mounting world action
Today’s joint statement follows growing anger and frustration in Western countries over the lack of political pressure on Israel to end the suffering in Gaza.
Polling in May showed more than 80% of Australians opposed Israel’s denial of aid as unjustifiable and wanted to see Australia doing more to support civilians in Gaza.
Last week’s meeting of the Hague Group of nations shows more collective concrete action is being taken to exert pressure and uphold international law.
Th 12 member states agreed to a range of diplomatic, legal and economic measures, including a ban on ships transporting arms to Israel.
The time for humanity is now
States will continue to face increased international and domestic pressure to take stronger action to influence Israel’s conduct as more Gazans are killed, injured and stripped of their dignity in an engineered famine.
This moment in Gaza is unprecedented in terms of our knowledge of the scale and gravity of violations being perpetrated and what failing to act means for Palestinians and our shared humanity.
Now is the time to exert diplomatic, legal and economic pressure on Israel to change course.
History tells us we need to act now – international law and our collective moral conscience requires it.
Amra Lee 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.
Radiodensity heatmap of emerald tree monitors.Roy Ebel
Monitor lizards, also known in Australia as goannas, are some of the most iconic reptiles on the continent. Their lineage not only survived the mass extinction that ended the reign of non-avian dinosaurs, but also gave rise to the largest living lizards on Earth.
Today, these formidable creatures pace through forests and scrublands, flicking their tongues as they go.
A new study published in the Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society looks beneath their skin. For the first time, it reveals hidden bone structures that may hold the key to the evolutionary success of goannas in Australia.
An essential organ
The skin is an organ essential for survival. In some animals, it includes a layer of bone plates embedded among the skin tissue. Think of the armour-like plates in crocodiles or armadillos: these are osteoderms.
Their size ranges from microscopic to massive, with the back plates of the stegosaurus as the most impressive example.
We have only just started to understand these enigmatic structures. Osteoderms can be found in animal lineages that diverged up to 380 million years ago. This means these bone plates would have evolved independently, just like active flight did in birds, pterosaurs and bats.
But what is their purpose? While the advantage of flight is undisputed, the case is not as clear for osteoderms.
The most obvious potential would be for defence – protecting the animal from injuries. However, osteoderms may serve a far broader purpose.
In crocodiles, for example, they help with heat regulation, play a part in movement, and even supply calcium during egg-laying. It is the interplay of these poorly understood functions that has long made it difficult to pinpoint how and why osteoderms evolved.
Sand monitors, also known as sand goannas, are widespread through most of Australia. Ken Griffiths/Shutterstock
A cutting-edge technique
To help resolve this enigma, we had to go back to the beginning.
Surprisingly, to date science has not even agreed on which species have osteoderms. Therefore, we assembled an international team of specialists to carry out the first large-scale study of osteoderms in lizards and snakes.
We studied specimens from scientific collections at institutions such as the Florida Museum of Natural History, the Natural History Museum in Berlin, and Museums Victoria.
However, we soon learnt that this came with challenges. Firstly, the presence of osteoderms can vary dramatically between individuals of the same species. Secondly, there is no guarantee that osteoderms are sufficiently preserved in all specimens.
Most importantly, they are buried deep within skin tissue and invisible to the naked eye. Traditionally, finding them meant destroying the specimen.
Instead, we turned to micro-computed tomography (micro-CT), an imaging technique similar to a medical CT scan, but with much higher resolution. This allowed us to study even the tiniest anatomical structures while keeping our specimens intact.
Micro-CT-based, computer-generated 3D model of Rosenberg’s goanna (Varanus rosenbergi), with the left half showing osteoderms and endoskeleton. Roy Ebel
Using computer-generated 3D models, we then digitally explored the bodies of lizards and snakes from all parts of the world. Incorporating data from prior literature, we processed almost 2,000 such samples in our search for osteoderms.
To illustrate our results, we devised a technique called radiodensity heatmapping, which visually highlights the locations of bone structures in the body.
For the first time, we now have a comprehensive catalogue showing where to find osteoderms in a large and diverse group; this will inform future studies.
Radiodensity heatmapping shows newly discovered osteoderms (yellow to red) in the limbs and tail of the Mexican knob scaled lizard (Xenosaurus platyceps). Roy Ebel
Not just anatomical curiosity
What we found was unexpected. It was thought only a small number of lizard families had osteoderms. However, we encountered them nearly twice as often as anticipated.
In fact, our results show nearly half of all lizards have osteoderms in one form or another.
Our most astonishing finding concerned goannas. Scientists have been studying monitor lizards for more than 200 years. They were long thought to lack osteoderms, except in rare cases such as the Komodo dragon.
So we were all the more surprised when we discovered previously undocumented osteoderms in 29 Australo-Papuan species, increasing their overall known prevalence five times.
Examples of newly discovered osteoderms (magenta) in Australo-Papuan monitor lizards. Roy Ebel
This isn’t just an anatomical curiosity. Now that we know Australian goannas have osteoderms, it opens up an exciting new avenue for further studies. This is because goannas have an interesting biogeographic history: when they first arrived in Australia about 20 million years ago, they had to adapt to a new, harsh environment.
If osteoderms in goannas showed up around this time – possibly owing to new challenges from their environment – we’d gain crucial insights into the function and evolution of these enigmatic bone structures.
Not only may we just have found the key to an untold chapter in the goanna story, our findings may also improve our understanding of the forces of evolution that shaped Australia’s unique reptiles as we know them today.
Roy Ebel receives funding from the Australian Government’s Research Training Program.
If Rupert Murdoch becomes a white knight standing up to a rampantly bullying US president, the world has moved into the upside-down.
This is, after all, the media mogul whose US television network, Fox News, actively supported Donald Trump’s Big Lie about the 2020 presidential election result and paid out a US$787 million (about A$1.2 billion) lawsuit for doing so.
It is also the network that supplied several members of Trump’s inner circle, including former Fox host, now controversial Defense Secretary, Pete Hegseth.
But that is where we are after Trump filed a writ on July 18 after Murdoch’s financial newspaper, The Wall Street Journal, published an article about a hand-drawn card Trump is alleged to have sent to sex offender Jeffrey Epstein in 2003. The newspaper reported:
A pair of small arcs denotes the woman’s breasts, and the future president’s signature is a squiggly “Donald” below her waist, mimicking pubic hair.
The Journal said it has seen the letter but did not republish it. The letter allegedly concluded:
Happy Birthday – and may every day be another wonderful secret.
The card was apparently Trump’s contribution to a birthday album compiled for Epstein by the latter’s partner Ghislaine Maxwell, who is serving a 20-year sentence after being found guilty of sex trafficking in 2021.
Trump was furious. He told his Truth Social audience he had warned Murdoch the letter was fake. He wrote, “Mr Murdoch stated that he would take care of it but obviously did not have the power to do so,” referring to Murdoch handing leadership of News Corporation to his eldest son Lachlan in 2023.
Trump is being pincered. On one side, The Wall Street Journal is a respected newspaper that speaks to literate, wealthy Americans who remain deeply sceptical about Trump’s radical initiative on tariffs, which it described in an editorial as “the dumbest trade war in history”.
On the other side is the conspiracy theory-thirsty MAGA base who have been told for years that there was a massive conspiracy around Epstein’s apparent suicide in 2019 that included the so-called deep state, Democrat elites and, no doubt, the Clintons.
Trump, who loves pro wrestling as well as adopting its garish theatrics, might characterise his lawsuit against Murdoch as a smackdown to rival Hulk Hogan vs Andre the Giant in the 1980s.
To adopt wrestling argot, though, it is a rare battle between two heels.
A friendship of powerful convenience
Murdoch and Trump’s relationship is longstanding but convoluted. The key to understanding it is that both men are ruthlessly transactional.
Exposure in Murdoch’s New York Post in the 1980s and ‘90s was crucial to building Trump’s reputation.
Not that Murdoch particularly likes Trump. Yes, Murdoch attended his second inauguration, albeit in a back row behind the newly favoured big tech media moguls. He was also seen sitting in the Oval Office a few days later looking quite at home.
But this was pure power-display politics, not the behaviour of a friend.
Remember Murdoch’s derision on hearing Trump was considering standing for office before the 2016 election, and his promotion of Ron De Santis in the primaries before Trump’s second term. Murdoch’s political hero has always been Ronald Reagan. Trump has laid waste to the Republican Party of Reagan.
Murdoch knows what the rest of sane America knows: Trump is downright weird, if not dangerous. This, of course, only makes Murdoch’s complicity in Trump’s rise to power, and Fox News’ continued boosterism of Trump, all the more appalling.
But, in keeping with Murdoch’s relationship to power throughout his career, what he helps make, he also helps destroy. Perhaps now it’s Trump’s turn to be unmade. As a former Murdoch lieutenant told The Financial Times over the weekend:
he’s testing out: Is Trump losing his base? And where do I need to be to stay in the heart of the base?
And here is Murdoch’s great advantage, and his looming threat.
A double-edged sword
The advantage comes with the scope of Murdoch’s media empire, which operates like a federation of different mastheads, each with their own market and aspirations. While Fox News panders to the MAGA base, and The New York Post juices its New York audience, The Wall Street Journal speaks, and listens, to business. Each audience has different needs, meaning they’re often presented with the same news in very different ways, or sometimes different news entirely.
Like a federation, though, News Corp uses its various operations to drive the type of change that affects all its markets.
It might work like this. The Wall Street Journal breaks a story that’s so shocking it begins to chip away at MAGA’s unquestioning loyalty of Trump. This process is, of course, willingly aided by the rest of the media. The resulting groundswell eventually allows Fox News and the Post to tentatively follow their audiences into questioning, and then perhaps criticising, Trump.
Fox News audiences could slowly begin to question Trump, or abandon the network entirely. NurPhoto/Getty
The threat is that before that groundswell builds, Murdoch is seriously vulnerable to criticism from a still dominant Trump, who can turn conspiracy-prone audiences away from Fox News with just a social media post. Trump has already been busy doing just that, saying he is looking forward to getting Murdoch onto the witness stand for his lawsuit.
If the Fox audience decides it’s the proprietor who’s behind this denigration of Trump, they may decide to boycott their own favoured media channel, even though Fox’s programming hasn’t yet started questioning Trump.
The Murdochs’ fear of audience backlash was a major factor in Fox’s promulgation of the Big Lie after Trump’s defeat in 2020. The fear their audience might defect to Newsmax or some other right-wing media outfit is just as real today.
History littered with fakery
We also need to consider that Trump might be right. What if the letter is a fake?
Murdoch has form when it comes to high-profile exposés that turn out to be fiction. Who can forget the Hitler Diaries in 1983, which we now know Murdoch knew were fake before he published.
Think also of the Pauline Hanson photos, allegedly of her posing in lingerie, all of which were quickly proved to be fake after they were published by Murdoch’s Australian tabloids in 2009.
There was also The Sun’s despicable and wilfully wrong campaign against Elton John in 1987 and the same paper’s continueddenigration of the people of Liverpool following the Hillsborough stadium disaster in 1989.
But while Murdoch’s News Corp has a history of confection and fakery, the Wall Street Journal has a reputation for straight reportage, albeit through a conservative lens. Since Murdoch bought it in 2007, it has been engaged in its own internal battle for editorial standards.
Media rolling over
What Trump won’t get from Murdoch is the same acquiescence he’s enjoyed from America’s ABC and CBS networks, which have both handed over tens of millions of dollars in defamation settlements following dubious claims by Trump about the nature of their coverage.
In December 2024, ABC’s owner Disney settled and agreed to pay US$15 million (A$23 million) to Trump’s presidential library. The president sued after a presenter said Trump was found guilty of raping E. Jean Carroll.
Trump had actually been found guilty by a jury in a civil trial of sexually abusing and defaming Carroll and was ordered to pay her US$5 million (A$7.6 million).
CBS’ parent company, Paramount, did similarly after being sued by the president, agreeing in early July to settle and pay US$16 million (A$24.5 million) to Trump’s library. This was despite earlier saying the case was “completely without merit”.
Beware the legal microscope
From Trump’s viewpoint, two prominent media companies have been cowed. But his campaign against critical media doesn’t stop there.
Last week, congress passed a bill cancelling federal funding for the country’s two public-service media outlets, the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) and National Public Radio (NPR).
Also last week, CBS announced the cancellation of Stephen Colbert’s stridently critical comedy show, although CBS claims this is just a cost-cutting exercise and not about appeasing a bully in the White House.
Presuming the reported birthday letter is real, Murdoch will not bend so easily. And that’s when it will be important to pay attention, because at some point Trump’s lawyers will advise him about the dangers of depositions and discovery: the legal processes that force parties to a dispute to reveal what they have and what they know.
If the Epstein files do implicate Trump, the legal fight won’t last long and the media campaign against him will only intensify.
Right now we have the spectre of Murdoch joining that other disaffected mogul, Elon Musk, in a moral crusade against Trump, the man they both helped make. The implications are head-spinning.
As global bullies, the three of them probably deserve each other. But we, the public, surely deserve better than any of them.
The authors 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.
Source: The Conversation – USA – By Paul M. Collins Jr., Professor of Legal Studies and Political Science, UMass Amherst
Emil Bove, Donald Trump’s nominee to serve as a federal appeals judge for the 3rd Circuit, is sworn in during a confirmation hearing in Washington, D.C., on June 25, 2025. Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call, Inc, via Getty Images
On June 24, 2025, Erez Reuveni, a former Department of Justice attorney who worked with Bove, released an extensive, 27-page whistleblower report. Reuveni claimed that Bove, as the Trump administration’s acting deputy attorney general, said “that it might become necessary to tell a court ‘fuck you’” and ignore court orders related to the administration’s immigration policies. Bove’s acting role ended on March 6 when he resumed his current position of principal associate deputy attorney general.
When asked about this statement at his June 25 Senate confirmation hearing, Bove said, “I don’t recall.”
And on July 15, 80 former federal and state judges signed a letter opposing Bove’s nomination. The letter argued that “Mr. Bove’s egregious record of mistreating law enforcement officers, abusing power, and disregarding the law itself disqualifies him for this position.”
A day later, more than 900 former Department of Justice attorneys submitted their own letter opposing Bove’s confirmation. The attorneys argued that “Few actions could undermine the rule of law more than a senior executive branch official flouting another branch’s authority. But that is exactly what Mr. Bove allegedly did through his involvement in DOJ’s defiance of court orders.”
On July 17, Democrats walked out of the Senate Judiciary Committee vote, in protest of the refusal by Chairman Chuck Grassley, a Republican from Iowa, to allow further investigation and debate on the nomination. Republicans on the committee then unanimously voted to move the nomination forward for a full Senate vote.
As a scholar of the courts, I know that most federal court appointments are not as controversial as Bove’s nomination. But highly contentious nominations do arise from time to time.
Here’s how three controversial nominations turned out – and how Bove’s nomination is different in a crucial way.
Robert Bork testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee for his confirmation as associate justice of the Supreme Court in September 1987. Mark Reinstein/Corbis via Getty Images
Robert Bork
Bork is the only federal court nominee whose name became a verb.
“Borking” is “to attack or defeat (a nominee or candidate for public office) unfairly through an organized campaign of harsh public criticism or vilification,” according to Merriam-Webster.
In opposing the Bork nomination, Sen. Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts took the Senate floor and gave a fiery speech: “Robert Bork’s America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens’ doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of government, and the doors of the federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens for whom the judiciary is often the only protector of the individual rights that are the heart of our democracy.”
Ultimately, Bork’s nomination failed by a 58-42 vote in the Senate, with 52 Democrats and six Republicans rejecting the nomination.
Republican Sen. John Ashcroft, from White’s home state of Missouri, led the fight against the nomination. Ashcroft alleged that White’s confirmation would “push the law in a pro-criminal direction.” Ashcroft based this claim on White’s comparatively liberal record in death penalty cases as a judge on the Missouri Supreme Court.
However, there was limited evidence to support this assertion. This led someto believe that Ashcroft’s attack on the nomination was motivated by stereotypes that African Americans, like White, are soft on crime.
Even Clinton implied that race may be a factor in the attacks on White: “By voting down the first African-American judge to serve on the Missouri Supreme Court, the Republicans have deprived both the judiciary and the people of Missouri of an excellent, fair, and impartial Federal judge.”
White’s nomination was defeated in the Senate by a 54-45 party-line vote. In 2014, White was renominated to the same judgeship by President Barack Obama and confirmed by largely party-line 53-44 vote, garnering the support of a single Republican, Susan Collins of Maine.
Ronnie White, a former justice for the Missouri Supreme Court, testifies during an attorney general confirmation hearing in Washington in January 2001. Alex Wong/Newsmakers
Estrada, who had earned a unanimous “well-qualified” rating from the American Bar Association, faced deep opposition from Senate Democrats, who believed he was a conservative ideologue. They also worried that, if confirmed, he would later be appointed to the Supreme Court.
Miguel Estrada, President George Bush’s nominee to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, is sworn in during his hearing before Senate Judiciary on Sept. 26, 2002. Scott J. Ferrell/Congressional Quarterly/Getty Images
However, unlike Bork – who had an extensive paper trail as an academic and judge – Estrada’s written record was very thin.
Democrats sought to use his confirmation hearing to probe his beliefs. But they didn’t get very far, as Estrada dodged many of the senators’ questions, including ones about Supreme Court cases he disagreed with and judges he admired.
Democrats were particularly troubled by allegations that Estrada, when he was screening candidates for Justice Anthony Kennedy, disqualified applicants for Supreme Court clerkships based on their ideology.
According to one attorney: “Miguel told me his job was to prevent liberal clerks from being hired. He told me he was screening out liberals because a liberal clerk had influenced Justice Kennedy to side with the majority and write a pro-gay-rights decision in a case known as Romer v. Evans, which struck down a Colorado statute that discriminated against gays and lesbians.”
When asked about this at his confirmation hearing, Estrada initially denied it but later backpedaled. Estrada said, “There is a set of circumstances in which I would consider ideology if I think that the person has some extreme view that he would not be willing to set aside in service to Justice Kennedy.”
Unlike the Bork nomination, Democrats didn’t have the numbers to vote Estrada’s nomination down. Instead, they successfully filibustered the nomination, knowing that Republicans couldn’t muster the required 60 votes to end the filibuster. This marked the first time in Senate history that a court of appeals nomination was filibustered. Estrada would never serve as a judge.
Bove stands out
As the examples of Bork, Estrada and White make clear, contentious nominations to the federal courts often involve ideological concerns.
This is also true for Bove, who is opposed in part because of the perception that he is a conservativeideologue.
This makes Bove stand out among contentious federal court nominations.
Paul M. Collins Jr. does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Source: The Conversation – (in Spanish) – By Ramón López de Mántaras, Profesor de investigación del CSIC, Instituto de Investigación en Inteligencia Artificial (IIIA – CSIC)
No son pocos los usuarios –entre ellos personas con formación científica o humanística– que aseguran haber percibido signos de vida interior, emociones e incluso voluntad en estos sistemas. Sostienen que ciertos intercambios verbales revelan emociones complejas, empatía, autoconciencia e incluso sufrimiento.
Esta ilusión ha sido descrita por el científico y filósofo estadounidense Douglas Richard Hofstadter como una peligrosa confusión entre el uso sofisticado del lenguaje y la vivencia subjetiva de una conciencia real. Su crítica apunta a la forma en que muchos entusiastas interpretan la complejidad verbal como una señal de interioridad, sin reparar en la diferencia crucial entre generar lenguaje y tener experiencias. Es precisamente esta distinción –entre producción textual y subjetividad vivida– la que permite cuestionar la idea de que un sistema lingüístico pueda, por sí solo, alcanzar conciencia.
La ilusión de conciencia y el efecto ELIZA
Este fenómeno no es nuevo. En 1966, el científico informático Joseph Weizenbaumdesarrolló Eliza, un sencillo programa que imitaba a un terapeuta. A pesar de su simplicidad, muchos usuarios llegaron a creer que el sistema los comprendía. Esta reacción preocupó profundamente al creador del programa, quien advirtió en su influyente libro Computer Power and Human Reason (1976) de los riesgos éticos y epistemológicos de atribuir vida mental a un software.
Los modelos de lenguaje como ChatGpt no comprenden
Hoy, sesenta años más tarde, con la capacidad verbal de los LLM, el efecto Eliza ha regresado amplificado. Los sistemas actuales no solo reformulan preguntas, sino que generan textos con coherencia narrativa, referencias filosóficas, giros estilísticos e incluso formas de humor. Sin embargo, esta competencia verbal no implica interioridad ni comprensión.
Los LLM no comprenden los conceptos que enuncian ni tienen experiencia de aquello que describen. El efecto Eliza consiste en proyectar conciencia allí donde solo hay estructuras lingüísticas generadas estadísticamente. Es fruto de sofisticadas técnicas que maximizan la probabilidad de la siguiente palabra en función de patrones extraídos de enormes corpus lingüísticos.
La fluidez de los modelos de lenguaje
Una de las grandes trampas epistémicas de los LLM es su fluidez. Su capacidad para construir discursos con cohesión y elegancia gramatical los vuelve extremadamente persuasivos. El científico y filósofo estadounidense Douglas Hofstadter (2007) ha llamado a esta habilidad “fluidez superficial”. Es decir, la capacidad de combinar términos y frases sin que ello implique reflexión o conciencia real. Lo que parece pensamiento profundo es, en realidad, un sofisticado espejismo verbal.
Se trata, en términos del filósofo Luciano Floridi (2019), de una “inteligencia artificial sin semántica”. O, en términos del filósofo de la ciencia Daniel Dennett (2018), de “habilidades sin comprensión”.
¿Cómo es ser un murciélago?
Para comprender por qué la fluidez verbal no equivale a conciencia, conviene volver a la filosofía. El filósofo Thomas Nagel, en su célebre ensayo What Is It Like to Be a Bat? (1974) (¿Cómo es ser un murciélago?), sostiene que la conciencia implica un punto de vista subjetivo, una cualidad fenomenológica que escapa a la descripción objetiva.
Esta opacidad de la experiencia subjetiva –llamada qualia– define para Nagel la conciencia como algo radicalmente distinto de cualquier simulación computacional. Por más que comprendamos el funcionamiento del cerebro de un murciélago, nunca sabremos qué se siente al ser uno.
Los modelos de lenguaje no tienen experiencias internas. Generan frases que “hablan” del amor, el miedo o la muerte, pero no sienten amor, miedo ni saben lo que significa morir. Carecen de lo que el filósofo Thomas Metzinger (2003) llama “modelos de sí mismos con acceso consciente”. Son máquinas sin punto de vista.
Un sistema sin cuerpo
Para profundizar en esta distinción, la fenomenología del filósofo francés Maurice Merleau-Ponty resulta especialmente reveladora. Merleau-Ponty argumenta que la conciencia no es un mero proceso mental ni un conjunto de datos simbólicos, sino que está inseparablemente ligada al cuerpo y a la experiencia encarnada del mundo. En su Fenomenología de la percepción (1945), describe la conciencia como una experiencia donde el cuerpo no es solo un objeto, sino el sujeto primordial a través del cual se percibe y se habita el mundo.
Pretender que un sistema sin cuerpo, sin mundo vivido y sin temporalidad interna pueda experimentar conciencia equivale a despojarla de sus condiciones esenciales.
Los LLM pueden articular frases sobre el sufrimiento o la belleza, pero no pueden habitarlas, ya que carecen totalmente de las experiencias sensorio-motoras que según Merleau-Ponty son condición sine qua non para la conciencia genuina.
La habitación china
En una línea similar, el filósofo John Searle (1980) ilustra esta ausencia de comprensión mediante su experimento mental de la habitación china. Una persona sin conocimientos de chino puede perfectamente responder a preguntas en ese idioma si dispone de un manual con reglas sintácticas precisas. A los ojos de un observador externo, parecería que comprende. Pero no hay comprensión real, solo manipulación sintáctica.
Así funcionan, para Searle, los sistemas computacionales: pueden simular comprensión, pero no poseen intencionalidad ni experiencia consciente. Esta analogía aplica directamente a los LLM: producen textos verosímiles sin comprensión semántica ni intención comunicativa.
La crítica del filósofo Hubert Dreyfus complementa esta perspectiva. En What Computers Can’t Do (Lo que los ordenadores no pueden hacer, 1972), insiste en que la inteligencia humana emerge de una relación práctica y encarnada con el mundo, una habilidad para navegar contextos complejos que los algoritmos no poseen. Así, aunque los LLM puedan generar textos coherentes y sofisticados, carecen de la comprensión experiencial y situacional que fundamenta la conciencia y la inteligencia humana.
La ilusión de conciencia en los LLM es un espejismo que nace de proyectar experiencias humanas en máquinas que carecen de cuerpo y experiencia.
La trampa del espejo
La clave del problema no reside en las máquinas, sino en los humanos. Lo que ocurre en muchos casos es que proyectamos sobre las máquinas nuestros propios esquemas cognitivos. Es lo que Hofstadter llama “la trampa del espejo”: creemos ver una mente donde solo hay palabras. Vemos conciencia porque queremos verla, porque en el fondo anhelamos encontrar un reflejo de nuestra interioridad. Como explica la socióloga Sherry Turkle (2011), no buscamos máquinas conscientes, sino relaciones significativas –aunque sean ilusorias– con entidades que nos devuelvan “la mirada”.
Esta proyección puede tener consecuencias importantes. A nivel afectivo, corremos el riesgo de desarrollar vínculos con entes que no pueden corresponderlos. A nivel epistemológico, confundimos apariencia con realidad. A nivel social, podríamos legitimar decisiones automatizadas que simulan empatía sin tenerla y ello podría debilitar nuestra comprensión de lo humano al confundir simulación con experiencia. A nivel legal podría incluso conducir a otorgar derechos y responsabilidades a sistemas que no pueden experimentarlos.
Si no aprendemos a distinguir entre lenguaje y experiencia, entre forma y fondo, entre simulacro y sujeto, corremos el riesgo de caer en una nueva forma de animismo tecnocientífico.
Antes de proclamar que las máquinas han despertado, quizá deberíamos despertar nosotros de nuestra fascinación por sus reflejos.
Ramón López de Mántaras 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.
Source: The Conversation – (in Spanish) – By Ana María Iglesias Botrán, Profesora del Departamento de Filología Francesa en la Facultad de Filosofía y Letras. Doctora especialista en estudios culturales franceses y Análisis del Discurso, Universidad de Valladolid
La noticia corrió como la pólvora: el bolso más caro de la historia –de la marca Hermès– había sido vendido en una subasta por ocho millones y medio de euros. Su nombre: Birkin, el apellido de la actriz y cantante inglesa, icono de los años sesenta y setenta.
Pero el bolso es, en realidad, una anécdota; sólo por ser la musa que inspiró este objeto de culto una puede imaginarse la magnitud de la leyenda de Jane Birkin.
Sus primeras películas
Nacida en Londres en 1946, su padre era capitán de fragata y su madre, actriz. Se casó a los 19 años con el compositor John Barry, del que se divorció tres años después.
Con 20 años participó con un pequeño papel secundario en la película Blow-up. Su guion estaba inspirado en un cuento de Julio Cortázar y fue galardonada con la Palma de Oro del Festival de Cine de Cannes. La taquilla alcanzó los 25 millones de dólares y su aparición, en la que sale medio desnuda, la catapultó a la popularidad.
Jane Birkin (izquierda) y Gillian Hills en Blow-Up. FIlmAffinity
El escándalo de ‘Je t’aime… moi non plus’
En 1969 protagonizó en Francia, junto con Serge Gainsbourg, la pelicula Slogan. Ambos comenzaron una relación intensa y apasionada que duró doce años. Durante esa época, Gainsbourg ejerció de “pigmalión”, la introdujo en los entornos artísticos franceses y ambos se convirtieron en una pareja icónica.
Serge Gainsbourg venía de vivir un romance con Brigitte Bardot, con quien había grabado la canción “Je t’aime… moi non plus” (“Te amo… yo tampoco”). La letra, los gemidos, jadeos y respiraciones evocan de forma explícita un encuentro sexual. Cuando el marido de Brigitte Bardot escuchó la canción se enfureció hasta el punto de amenazar con tomar medidas legales si se difundía.
Jane Birkin interpretó la versión que finalmente sí se publicó.
El gran escándalo que provocó la canción fue su mejor publicidad. Se prohibió en Inglaterra, España, Portugal, Suecia, Brasil, Italia…
En Francia fue censurada por su contenido pornográfico. Se vendía con una pegatina que indicaba que era para mayores de edad, y sólo se podía emitir en la radio por la noche. El mismísimo Vaticano se pronunció en L’Osservatore Romano amenazando con excomuniones. Fue así como la canción erótica que todo el mundo quería prohibir alcanzó el éxito mundial.
El erotismo de Jane
“69, année érotique”, que da nombre a una de sus canciones, refleja el gusto de Jane Birkin por el erotismo. Su voz suave, delicada y con un tono sensual, aunque pareciera frágil evocaba con naturalidad todo tipo de fantasías. A Jane le divertía explorar ese juego erótico: lo asumía con libertad, lo disfrutaba y lo compartía abiertamente con Serge Gainsbourg.
Una prueba clara de esta faceta fue el reportaje titulado “Jane erotojane”, publicado en la edición navideña de 1974 de la revista masculina Lui. En él, las fotos tomadas por Frank Gitty y los textos escritos por el propio Gainsbourg mostraban una imagen de Birkin cargada de sensualidad. Era un erotismo explícito, en el límite entre el sadomasoquismo y la violencia, expresando una visión artística y provocadora del deseo y la atracción física.
Alain Delon y Jane Birkin en La piscina. FilmAffinity
Birkin también participó en películas consideradas transgresoras para su época, como Si Don Juan fuese mujer, donde mantenía una relación sexualmente ambigua con Brigitte Bardot, además de actuar en éxitos de taquilla como La piscina.
Punto y seguido a Serge Gainsbourg
Tras doce años juntos y una hija –Charlotte Gainsbourg–, Jane Birkin y Serge Gainsbourg se separaron. Pero su amistad nunca terminó. Serge siguió escribiendo canciones para ella y de esa complicidad nació Baby Alone in Babylone (1983), el primer disco de Jane Birkin en solitario.
Más tarde, Jane tuvo otra hija, Lou, con el cineasta Jacques Doillon. Serge fue su padrino; una prueba de que la conexión entre ellos nunca se rompió.
Gainsbourg falleció en 1991. Tras su muerte, Jane Birkin se animó a subir a los escenarios, algo que hasta entonces le habían impedido el miedo escénico y una timidez insospechada. En 1995 lanzó Versions Jane, donde reinterpretaba canciones de Serge. En 1998 dio un paso más allá con À la légère, el primer disco sin vínculos con su expareja, rompiendo así con la imagen de “viuda oficial” que muchos le atribuían.
Jane Birkin en el Festival de Cine de Cannes de 2008, donde organizó un evento denominado ‘Día de Birmania’ para llamar la atención sobre la difícil situación de los monjes birmanos. Featureflash Photo Agency/Shutterstock
Birkin se comprometió activamente con diversas causas sociales. Entre ellas, la defensa del derecho al aborto en el famoso proceso de Bobigny (1972), en el que se juzgaba a una menor que había abortado tras ser violada. Muchas personalidades, incluida la filósofa Simone de Beauvoir, también apoyaron a la acusada. La gran presión social suscitada con este caso, entre otros factores, dio como resultado que el aborto fuera despenalizado en Francia con la Ley Veil en 1975.
Y aquí volvemos al famoso bolso, que, aunque exitoso, no estuvo exento de polémica. Porque, comprometida con la defensa de los derechos de los animales, y tras ver un documental de la organización PETA, Birkin publicó un comunicado en el que denunciaba públicamente el uso de piel de cocodrilo para fabricar bolsos, incluyendo el que llevaba su nombre, y pedía que le retiraran su nombre al accesorio si no se implementaban prácticas más éticas hacia los cocodrilos con los que se fabricaba. Hermès realizó una investigación y accedió a las peticiones de la artista.
Jane sostuvo también otras causas sociales y humanitarias, algunas promocionadas con pegatinas en su “Birkin”.
Comment te dire adieu?
La vida de Birkin fue azarosa. Tanto que ella misma fue el sujeto de estudio de dos documentales: Jane B para Agnès V (1988), dirigido por su amiga, la directora Agnès Varda, y Jane por Charlotte (2021), dirigido por la hija que tuvo con Gainsbourg, Charlotte.
Tráiler del documental Jane por Charlotte.
Birkin fue diagnosticada de leucemia en 2002, su hija Kate murió trágicamente precipitándose por una ventana –en lo que todo apuntaba a un suicidio– en 2013 y, en sus últimos años, ella contrajo el covid-19 en varias ocasiones. Pero a pesar de todo, siguió cantando y disfrutando de la adoración del público hasta prácticamente su final, en 2023, a los 76 años.
El bolso Birkin se encarga desde entonces de seguir nutriendo su leyenda.
Ana María Iglesias Botrán 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.
Source: The Conversation – (in Spanish) – By Ivan Sosa Gómez, Doctor en Economía y Empresa. Profesor e investigador en la UCJC, Universidad Camilo José Cela
En los últimos años, el fenómeno insurtech (de insurance, seguro, y technology, tecnología) ha servido para rediseñar el modelo de negocio de las aseguradoras. Las empresas insurtech incorporan las nuevas tecnologías (big data, IA) al sector para el desarrollo de productos más eficientes.
Este cambio afecta directamente a los asegurados pues impacta en cómo se contrata un seguro, cómo se diseñan las coberturas o cuánto paga para asegurar sus riesgos.
De oficinas a aplicaciones
Si hace unos años contratar un seguro requería visitas presenciales a las sucursales de las compañías aseguradoras, hoy es posible tanto la contratación de seguros como la atención al cliente en minutos y desde el móvil.
La digitalización del sector incluye el uso de la inteligencia artificial para evaluar los daños tras un siniestro mediante el envío de imágenes a través de la app de la aseguradora. Esto reduce los tiempos de espera y mejora la experiencia de usuario de los asegurados. La optimización del proceso hace que, a su vez, los clientes esperen respuestas más rápidas y procesos más simples de las empresas.
Personalizado y flexible
La digitalización ha traído la personalización en el diseño de los seguros. La posibilidad de recopilar, organizar, analizar e interpretar datos –para extraer información relevante y tomar decisiones optimizadas– ha permitido a las compañías adaptar sus productos al perfil de cada usuario.
Por ejemplo, hay seguros de salud que ajustan el precio en función del estilo de vida del asegurado o seguros de coche que calculan la prima según sus hábitos de conducción, recogidos por sensores en el vehículo (pay how you drive) (“paga según cómo conduzcas”).
Este tipo de productos ya están activos en Europa. Algunas insurtechs, como la británica By Miles, ofrecen un seguro de automóvil por el que el asegurado paga por los kilómetros recorridos. En salud, hay startups que tienen como clientes a empresas que ofrecen –como parte de sus beneficios laborales– pólizas ajustadas en cobertura y precios al estilo de vida de los empleados.
Aunque productos de este tipo favorecen a los usuarios responsables, también abren el debate sobre la privacidad y el uso de datos personales.
¿Qué está pasando en el sector?
El auge de insurtechs ha provocado la aparición de cientos de startups de seguros en todo el mundo. Estas empresas no sustituyen a las aseguradoras tradicionales, pero aportan al sector la agilidad y las soluciones tecnológicas que los grandes grupos no pueden desarrollar con rapidez.
El mercado global de insurtech en 2023 fue de 22 000 millones de dólares. Las proyecciones indican que este mercado podría llegar a alcanzar los 306 500 millones en 2030, lo que supone una tasa de crecimiento anual cercana al 45 %. Este incremento exponencial se explica, en gran medida, por la entrada de nuevos actores tecnológicos, la inversión en soluciones de automatización y personalización, y la presión que ejerce el ecosistema insurtech sobre las aseguradoras tradicionales para modernizar sus modelos de negocio.
El ecosistema ‘insurtech’
La transformación no es solo digital: también está cambiando el enfoque del negocio de los seguros. Se está pasando de vender productos a construir ecosistemas de valor. En términos de estrategia empresarial, hablamos de redes de entidades interconectadas (organizaciones, individuos y tecnologías) que colaboran para crear más y mejor valor para las empresas (más oportunidades de negocio, un crecimiento más rápido y mayor adaptabilidad, por ejemplo).
Las grandes compañías de seguros también se han apuntado a la digitalización y operan con modelos en los que la contratación, gestión y atención al cliente se realizan en ecosistemas digitales cerrados. Y hay plataformas específicas que permiten a las aseguradoras integrar sistemas de pagos digitales y automatización de siniestros.
En este nuevo modelo de negocio la colaboración es la clave: las insurtechs buscan el crecimiento y la innovación a través de asociaciones empresariales. De ahí que la capacidad de una aseguradora para construir ecosistemas se haya convertido en una fuente crítica de ventaja competitiva.
¿Qué implican estos cambios para el asegurado?
Para los consumidores, esto supone contrataciones más simples y rápidas, precios potencialmente más justos –basados en el comportamiento real del cliente– y acceso a un mayor número de servicios a través de dispositivos móviles.
Pero la digitalización también obliga a pensar en cuestiones como la protección de los datos personales de los usuarios, en cómo evitar la exclusión de perfiles considerados de riesgo o garantizar una atención humana cuando esta sea necesaria.
Una transformación imparable
El sector asegurador está pasando de una estructura tradicional a un ecosistema digital centrado en el usuario. Lo que antes era un contrato difícil de entender ahora es una relación en tiempo real entre personas, datos y tecnología. Y este nuevo contexto puede beneficiar tanto a las aseguradoras como a los asegurados.
La clave está en aprovechar las ventajas de la digitalización sin perder el foco humano. Porque, al final, asegurar no es sólo una cuestión de tecnología, sino de proteger a las personas frente a los riesgos reales de su día a día.
Ivan Sosa Gómez 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.
.jpg){kind=link}