Category: English

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Adam Nemeroff, Assistant Provost for Innovations in Learning, Teaching, and Technology, Quinnipiac University

You’ve probably encountered images in your social media feeds that look like a cross between photographs and computer-generated graphics. Some are fantastical – think Shrimp Jesus – and some are believable at a quick glance – remember the little girl clutching a puppy in a boat during a flood?

These are examples of AI slop, low- to mid-quality content – video, images, audio, text or a mix – created with AI tools, often with little regard for accuracy. It’s fast, easy and inexpensive to make this content. AI slop producers typically place it on social media to exploit the economics of attention on the internet, displacing higher-quality material that could be more helpful.

AI slop has been increasing over the past few years. As the term “slop” indicates, that’s generally not good for people using the internet.

AI slop’s many forms

The Guardian published an analysis in July 2025 examining how AI slop is taking over YouTube’s fastest-growing channels. The journalists found that nine out of the top 100 fastest-growing channels feature AI-generated content like zombie football and cat soap operas.

Listening to Spotify? Be skeptical of that new band, The Velvet Sundown, that appeared on the streaming service with a creative backstory and derivative tracks. It’s AI-generated.

In many cases, people submit AI slop that’s just good enough to attract and keep users’ attention, allowing the submitter to profit from platforms that monetize streaming and view-based content.

The ease of generating content with AI enables people to submit low-quality articles to publications. Clarkesworld, an online science fiction magazine that accepts user submissions and pays contributors, stopped taking new submissions in 2024 because of the flood of AI-generated writing it was getting.

These aren’t the only places where this happens — even Wikipedia is dealing with AI-generated low-quality content that strains its entire community moderation system. If the organization is not successful in removing it, a key information resource people depend on is at risk.

Harms of AI slop

AI-driven slop is making its way upstream into people’s media diets as well. During Hurricane Helene, opponents of President Joe Biden cited AI-generated images of a displaced child clutching a puppy as evidence of the administration’s purported mishandling of the disaster response. Even when it’s apparent that content is AI-generated, it can still be used to spread misinformation by fooling some people who briefly glance at it.

AI slop also harms artists by causing job and financial losses and crowding out content made by real creators. The placement of this lower-quality AI-generated content is often not distinguished by the algorithms that drive social media consumption, and it displace entire classes of creators who previously made their livelihood from online content.

Wherever it’s enabled, you can flag content that’s harmful or problematic. On some platforms, you can add community notes to the content to provide context. For harmful content, you can try to report it.

Along with forcing us to be on guard for deepfakes and “inauthentic” social media accounts, AI is now leading to piles of dreck degrading our media environment. At least there’s a catchy name for it.

Adam Nemeroff 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.

– ref. What is AI slop? A technologist explains this new and largely unwelcome form of online content – https://theconversation.com/what-is-ai-slop-a-technologist-explains-this-new-and-largely-unwelcome-form-of-online-content-256554

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Morgan E. PettyJohn, Assistant Professor of Social Work, University of Texas at Arlington

As a teen growing up in an abusive household, Morgan coped daily with physical and emotional harm from her mother. However, she felt safe and supported when she posted about her experiences on a fake Instagram account – widely referred to as a Finsta – which disguised her true identity.

Morgan (no relation to the co-author of this article) used her Finsta to tell peers what she was going through, and to send and receive encouraging words. Without that lifeline, she told us in an interview at age 21, “I probably would not have made it out.”

We are social work and public health researchers who study how people use digital technologies to seek help after they experience violence. We’ve found that social media has become a crucial outlet for young people to disclose abuse, connect with peers who’ve had similar experiences, and learn about safety strategies.

Every year in the United States, it’s estimated that more than 1 in 7 children face violence or neglect in their home. These experiences often go unreported. Some children don’t recognize their experiences as abuse. Others are ashamed. Many fear what will happen next if they speak out.

When young people reveal neglect or abuse, they are more likely to turn to informal support systems, such as friends, rather than authorities. In today’s digital world, those disclosures are increasingly happening online. In the midst of growing concerns about social media harming young people, its platforms offer important benefits for some vulnerable youth.

Sharing difficult stories

To understand how and why young people talk about maltreatment online, we began by analyzing posts about “family issues” made on a peer-to-peer support website called TalkLife. We found many examples of young people describing maltreatment.

They wrote about people in their households withholding food from them, sexually abusing them or physically harming them, leaving them with bruises or dislocated limbs. Usually these harms were inflicted by a caregiver – a parent, stepparent, grandparent or other guardian. The young people who shared these experiences typically were venting their feelings, asking questions or seeking support.

We also analyzed over 1,000 responses to these posts. Peers were overwhelmingly sympathetic, offering emotional support and advice, or commiserating about their own abuse or neglect. Responses that joked about and minimized the posters’ experiences, or were unsupportive in other ways, were comparatively rare.

To understand these dynamics more deeply, we next surveyed 18– to 21-year-olds across the U.S. Among 641 respondents, about one-third reported experiencing abuse or neglect during their childhoods. Of this group, more than half – 56% – had talked about their maltreatment on social media.

We interviewed a subsample of these participants to learn what motivated them to share their experiences on social media, and how these interactions affected them. Eva, age 21, said:

“…(it’s) a place where other people like me, who wanted attention and wanted to feel validated and wanted to talk about it in sort of a low stake situation, they’d come to that place. So, all of us together, we’re sort of supporting each other and saying like, hey, what you feel is valid.”

Why seek help online?

Most young people use social media to interact, express themselves and learn new things. Some users are exposed to new information that helps them identify their experiences as abuse or neglect.

One 20-year-old participant who posted about their experiences in a Reddit forum dedicated to support for mental health issues said: “I was born into (the abuse), right? So this was my normal, this was my everyday … the more that I started to get older, the more that I started to hear other people’s experiences. I went ‘ohh, something about this that I grew up with, I don’t think that’s normal.’”

Maltreated young people also turn to social media because they lack other options. Minors don’t typically have the legal or financial power to move out of an abusive home or start seeing a therapist without parental involvement.

“When you’re a kid, you don’t really have a lot of agency over things in your life … if all you have access to is social media and people online to talk to, that’s really the only way you can vent and express that you’re fed up and that you need help,” Kara, age 20, told us.

Even when resources such as school counselors are available, many young people avoid them because those people or agencies are subject to mandatory reporting requirements. Posting on social media allows youth to talk about their experiences, often anonymously, without fearing that the situation will escalate out of their control.

“It’s a very dangerous position to ask children to put themselves in to report their abuse, especially knowing the flaws in our (child protective services) system,” Dos, age 21, told us.

Participants in our study described supportive online relationships between individual users, as well as within broader social media communities. Eva, age 21, found that when she posted about her experiences, people online were “more willing to discuss it and have empathy for you than you would see in the average person on the street.”

But turning to social media also can have serious downsides for young people struggling with abuse or neglect. Lacking offline support systems, these users are highly vulnerable to online harm. Social media can expose them to misinformation, traumatic content or predatory behavior disguised as support.

Without safe adults to help them navigate these spaces, young abuse victims face a paradox: The internet may be their only option for connection, but it is not always safe or reliable.

The role of adults

Drawing from our interviews, we see three key takeaways for educators, policymakers and technology platforms:

– Young people need better access to safe, reliable information and resources about dealing with abuse and neglect that offer anonymity and do not trigger mandatory reporting. While reporting laws are designed to protect children, they can discourage disclosure if young people fear that seeking help will trigger an immediate and unwanted intervention.

In our view, creating resources that balance safety with autonomy is critical. Confidential hotlines, like the National Child Abuse Hotline, are among the only places where children can talk with an adult anonymously.

– Policies that ban social media or require parental permission for minors may unintentionally increase risks for maltreated youth. Creating safer pathways for internet use is a more effective way to protect young people online.

– Since caregivers and other adults aren’t always available or willing to protect children online, we believe that platforms should be held accountable for design features, such as algorithms, privacy controls and moderation strategies, that can make sites unsafe for vulnerable youth seeking support.

Social media can’t replace offline resources for children who are being maltreated. But for many young people, these platforms have become a first step toward recognition, connection and survival. By learning how and why abused youth share their experiences digitally, adults can better understand their needs and build systems that meet them where they are.

Editor’s note: All names quoted in this article are pseudonyms that were chosen by the research participants.

Morgan E. PettyJohn receives funding from the Kalman & Ida Wolens Foundation. She is a member of the Society for Social Work and Research, the American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy, and the Society for the Scientific Study of Sexuality. She also serves on the editorial board for the American Psychological Association journal, Psychology of Men and Masculinities.

Laura Schwab Reese receives funding from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, North Central Health Services, Childhelp Inc, Administration on Children, Youth and Families, and Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. She is a member of the American Public Health Association, Society for Advancement of Violence and Injury Research, International Society for the Prevention of Child Abuse & Neglect, Association for Computing Machinery, Association of Internet Researchers, and American Communication Association. She serves as Associate Editor for Journal of Family Violence and Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare, and on the editorial boards of Child Abuse & Neglect and the American Journal of Public Health.

– ref. ‘What you feel is valid’: Social media is a lifeline for many abused and neglected young people – https://theconversation.com/what-you-feel-is-valid-social-media-is-a-lifeline-for-many-abused-and-neglected-young-people-263174

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Paul Mwebaze, Research Economist at the Institute for Sustainability, Energy and Environment, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

If your morning can’t begin without coffee, you’re in good company. The world drinks about 2 billion cups of coffee a day. However, a European Union law might soon affect your favorite coffee beans – and the farmers who grow them.

Starting in 2026, companies selling coffee on the European Union market will have to prove that their product is “deforestation-free.” That means every bag of beans, every jar of ground coffee and every espresso capsule must trace back to coffee plants on land that hasn’t been cleared of forest since Dec. 31, 2020.

The new rules, found in what’s known as the EU Deforestation Regulation, are part of a wider effort to ensure European consumption doesn’t drive global deforestation.

However, on the ground – from the coffee hills of Ethiopia to the plantations of Brazil – the rule change could transform how coffee is grown, traded and sold.

Why the EU is targeting deforestation

Deforestation is a major driver of biodiversity loss and accounts for about 10% of global greenhouse gas emissions. And coffee plantations, along with cocoa, soy and palm oil production, which are also covered by the new regulations, are known sources of forest loss in some countries.

Under the new EU Deforestation Regulation, companies will be required to trace their coffee to its exact origin – down to the farm plot where the beans were grown – and provide geolocation data and documentation of supply chain custody to EU authorities.

They will also have to show proof, often through satellite imagery, that any open land where coffee is grown was forest-free before the 2020 cutoff date.

The rules were initially set to go into effect in early 2025 but were pushed back after complaints from many countries. Governments and industry groups in Latin America, Africa and Southeast Asia warned of trade friction for small farms, and the World Trade Organization has received complaints about the regulations.

Most companies must now comply by Dec. 30, 2025. Small enterprises get until June 30, 2026.

Potential winners and losers

The coffee supply chain is complex. Beans are grown by millions of farmers, sold to collectors, then move through processors, exporters, importers and roasters before reaching grocery shelves. Adding the EU rules means more checkpoints, more paperwork and possibly new strategies for sourcing coffee beans.

Small farms in particular could be vulnerable to losing business when the new rules go into effect. They could lose contracts or market access if they can’t provide the plot-level GPS coordinates and nondeforestation documentation buyers will require. That could prompt buyers to shift toward larger estates or organized co-ops that can provide the documentation.

If a farm can’t provide precise plot coordinates or pay for mapping services, it could end up being excluded from the world’s largest coffee market.

Larger coffee growers already using systems that can trace beans back to specific farm plots could gain a competitive edge.

The new regulations also include stricter oversight for countries considered most likely to allow deforestation, which could slow trade from those regions. As a result, buyers may shift to regions with lower deforestation risk.

Even outside Europe, big buyers are likely to prioritize beans they can trace to nondeforested plots, potentially dropping small farms that can’t provide plot-level proof. That could reduce availability and raise the price of some coffee types and put farms out of business. In some cases, the EU regulations could reroute undocumented coffee beans into markets such as the U.S.

Helping small farms succeed

For small farms, succeeding under the new EU rules will depend on access to technical support and low-cost tools for tracing their crop’s origin. Some countries are developing national systems to track deforestation, and they are pushing the EU to invest more in helping them.

Those small farms that can comply with the rules, often through co-ops, could become attractive low-risk suppliers for large buyers seeking compliant crops.

The change could also boost demand for sustainability certifications, such as Rainforest Alliance, 4C Common Code or Fairtrade, which certify only products that don’t contribute to deforestation. But even certified farms will still need to provide precise location data.

Agroforestry’s potential

Arabica coffee, the most common variety sold globally, naturally evolved as an understory shrub, performing best in cooler tropical uplands with good drainage and often partial shade. That points to a way farmers can reduce deforestation risk while still growing coffee: agroforestry.

Agroforestry involves planting or conserving shade trees in and around coffee plots to maintain the tree canopy.

In agroforestry systems, shade trees can buffer heat and drought, often reducing evaporation from soil and moderating plants’ water stress. Several field studies show lower evaporative losses and complementary water use between coffee and shade trees. In some contexts, this can lower irrigation needs and reduce fertilizer demand. Practical tools such as World Coffee Research’s Shade Catalog help farmers choose the right tree species for their location and goals.

Agroforestry is common in Ethiopia, where Arabica originated, and in parts of Central America, thanks to long traditions of growing coffee in shade and specialty demand for the products.

Under the new EU rules, however, even these farms must prove that no forest was cleared after 2020.

Why this matters to coffee drinkers

For European coffee drinkers, the new EU rules promise more sustainable coffee. But they may also mean higher prices if compliance costs are passed down the supply chain to consumers.

For coffee lovers elsewhere, changes in global trade flows could shift where beans are sold and at what price. As EU buyers bid up beans that can be traced to nondeforested plots, more of those “fully verified” coffees will flow to Europe. U.S. roasters may then face higher prices or tighter supply for traceable lots, while unverified beans are discounted or simply avoided by brands that choose to follow EU standards.

Paul Mwebaze 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.

– ref. How Europe’s deforestation law could change the global coffee trade – https://theconversation.com/how-europes-deforestation-law-could-change-the-global-coffee-trade-264011

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By William D. Spangler, Associate Professor Emeritus of Management, Binghamton University, State University of New York

Niccolò Machiavelli, the infamous author of “The Prince,” wrote in the 1500s that the ideal leader makes and breaks solemn agreements. He creates alliances with weak allies to defeat a powerful enemy and then eliminates them one by one. He blames his next-in-charge for his own mistakes, and he executes opponents in public.

St. Francis of Assisi was the antithesis of a Machiavellian leader. Born in 1181, the future saint renounced his father’s wealth, then spent the remainder of his life wandering around northern Italy as a beggar and preacher. Francis gained a reputation for extreme humility – but certainly he was not weak. He dealt with popes, nobles and even an Egyptian sultan. He founded a religious order, the Franciscans, that survives today.

In modern times, Machiavellian leaders abound in the corporate world. Perhaps more surprisingly, many other business leaders resemble Francis: humble and self-effacing, but by no means weak. In our research, we argue that two types of motivation help to explain these vast and enduring differences in leadership.

‘Two faces of power’

Psychologists have long been fascinated by people’s nonconscious motives – and how to measure them. One influential assessment, developed in the 1930s, is the Thematic Apperception Test, or TAT. People write short stories about ambiguous pictures, and researchers then analyze the stories to see which themes emerge: what the writer cares or worries about, and how they see the world.

In 1970, psychologist David McClelland coined the phrase “the two faces of power” to describe two different types of power that motivate people, based on his TAT analyses: personal power and socialized power. Personal power is the motivation to dominate others. McClelland noted that people with a desire for personal power tend to use imagery that evokes “the ‘law of the jungle’ in which the strongest survive by destroying their adversaries.” Socialized power, on the other hand, aims to benefit others.

McClelland noted that personal power was associated with behavior like heavy drinking, gambling, aggressive impulses and collecting “prestige supplies,” like convertibles. People concerned with the more socialized aspect of power, meanwhile, join more organizations and are more apt to become officers in them, including sports teams.

A few years later, McClelland and consultant David Burnham published an article titled “Power is the Great Motivator,” elaborating on this basic link between power motivation and leader effectiveness. Through a series of biographical vignettes and an analysis of a large company, they showed that managers exhibiting a high degree of socialized power were more effective than managers motivated by personal power.

Measuring motivation

It seemed to us that personal power, the “law of the jungle,” motivates the kinds of behavior approvingly described by Machiavelli. Likewise, socialized power seemed to underlie the forceful but altruistic behavior of St. Francis and modern so-called humble leaders.

But we faced a problem: how to measure motivation. Powerful people such as world-class CEOs have little inclination to take TATs or answer questionnaires for admittedly humble scholars.

In the 1990s, psychologist David Winter showed that speeches, interviews and diplomatic texts reveal nonconscious motivation in the same way as the Thematic Apperception Test – demonstrating a way to study leaders’ views of power. For example, someone driven by a desire for personal power often tries to control or regulate people around them; attempts to persuade and convince; and is concerned with fame, status and reputation.

However, Winters’ procedures for analyzing texts are manual and complex; it is difficult to process a large number of documents. Also, he focused on personal power; socialized power was not included in his coding procedures.

Words and action

In order to overcome these limitations, we used computer-aided text analysis to analyze the language of CEOs in interviews and conference calls.

In a series of 2019 studies, which were peer-reviewed and summarized in the Academy of Management Proceedings, our team identified 40 Machiavellian and 40 humble CEOs. First, we took a close look at the types of words and phrases that distinguished the two groups, shedding light on the kind of power that motivates each one.

Using these patterns, we created two “dictionaries” of words and phrases that expressed personal power and socialized power. Language about strong, forceful actions, control, managing impressions, punishment and fear of failure, to name a few themes, constituted the personal power dictionary. “Defeat,” “overrun” and “strafe,” for example, appeared among the words on the personal power list. Themes such as rewards, mentoring and positive relationships characterized the socialized power dictionary.

Then, we used a computer program to scan hundreds of interviews and quarterly conference calls. The computer program calculated personal and socialized power scores for each of the CEOs.

Our team also developed indexes of Machiavellian and humble leader behavior – such as smearing competitors and backing out of agreements, or making significant donations to charity, respectively – and measured all 80 CEOs.

We found very high correlations between power motivation and CEO behavior. CEOs with high personal power scores, based on our analysis of their interviews and conference calls, also tended to show Machiavellian behavior. CEO humble behavior was positively related to socialized power.

People and profits

Do these abstract statistical results really mean anything? Evidently.

Numerous CEOs from our list of humble executives have founded or managed exceptionally successful and people-oriented companies, including Warren Buffet of Berkshire Hathaway, Danny Wegman of Wegmans, and James Goodnight of the SAS Institute. Several of the “humble” CEOs have appeared multiple times on Fortune’s annual Best Companies to Work For list.

The Machiavellian CEO list included Kenneth Lay of Enron fame and John Rigas, one of the founders of Adelphia Communications Corporation, who was convicted of fraud. Mark Hurd, one-time CEO of Hewlett Packard, appeared on Complex’s list of the worst chief executive officers in tech history. In general, criticisms of “profits over people,” poor treatment of employees, scandals, lavish spending, lawsuits and accusations or convictions of fraud characterize many of our Machiavellian CEOs.

McClelland and Burnham were right. Power really is the “great motivator,” but it’s the type of power that makes the difference.

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Personal power v. socialized power: What Machiavelli and St. Francis can tell us about modern CEOs – https://theconversation.com/personal-power-v-socialized-power-what-machiavelli-and-st-francis-can-tell-us-about-modern-ceos-258016