Conflict in Syria has escalated with Israel launching bombing raids against its northern neighbour.
It follows months of fluctuating tensions in southern Syria between the Druze minority and forces aligned with the new government in Damascus. Clashes erupted in the last few days, prompting Israeli airstrikes in defence of the Druze by targeting government bases, tanks, and heavy weaponry.
a terrorist, a barbaric murderer who should be eliminated without delay.
Despite the incendiary language, a ceasefire has been reached, halting the fighting – for now.
Syrian forces have begun withdrawing heavy military equipment from the region, while Druze fighters have agreed to suspend armed resistance, allowing government troops to regain control of the main Druze city of Suwayda.
What do the Druze want?
The Druze are a small religious minority estimated at over one million people, primarily concentrated in the mountainous regions of Lebanon, Syria, Israel, and Jordan.
In Syria, their population is estimated at around 700,000 (of around 23 million total Syrian population), with the majority residing in the southern As-Suwayda Governorate – or province – which serves as their traditional stronghold.
Since the 2011 uprising against the Assad regime, the Druze have maintained a degree of autonomy, successfully defending their territory from various threats, including ISIS and other jihadist groups.
They advocate for a decentralised model that would grant greater autonomy to regional communities.
However, the transitional government in Damascus is pushing for a centralised state and seeking to reassert full control over the entire Syrian territory. This fundamental disagreement has led to periodic clashes between Druze forces and government-aligned troops.
Despite the temporary ceasefire, tensions remain high. Given the core political dispute remains unresolved, many expect renewed conflict to erupt in the near future.
Why is Israel involved?
The ousting of the Assad regime created a strategic opening for Israel to expand its influence in southern Syria. Israel’s involvement is driven by two primary concerns:
1. Securing its northern border
Israel views the power vacuum in Syria’s south as a potential threat, particularly the risk of anti-Israeli militias establishing a foothold near its northern border.
The Israeli Defence Forces will not allow a military threat to exist in southern Syria and will act against it.
Likewise, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has stated he will not allow Syrian forces south of Damascus:
We are acting to prevent the Syrian regime from harming them [the Druze] and to ensure the demilitarisation of the area adjacent to our border with Syria.
In line with these warnings, the Israeli Air Force has conducted extensive strikes against Syrian military infrastructure, targeting bases, aircraft, tanks, and heavy weaponry.
These operations are intended to prevent any future buildup of military capacity that could be used against Israel from the Syrian side of the border.
2. Supporting a federated Syria
Israel is backing the two prominent allied minorities in Syria — the Kurds in the northeast and the Druze in the south — in their push for a federal governance model.
A fragmented Syria, divided along ethnic and religious lines, is seen by some Israeli policymakers as a way to maintain Israeli domination in the region.
This vision is part of what some Israeli officials have referred to as a “New Middle East” — one where regional stability and normalisation emerge through reshaped borders and alliances.
Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar recently echoed this strategy, stating:
A single Syrian state with effective control and sovereignty over all its territory is unrealistic.
For Israel, the logical path forward is autonomy for the various minorities in Syria within a federal structure.
The United States’ role?
According to unconfirmed reports, Washington has privately urged Israel to scale back its military strikes on Syria in order to prevent further escalation and preserve regional stability.
The US is promoting increased support for Syria’s new regime in an effort to help it reassert control and stabilise the country.
There are also indications the US and its allies are encouraging the Syrian government to move toward normalisation with Israel. Reports suggest Tel Aviv has held talks with the new Sharaa-led regime about the possibility of Syria joining the Abraham Accords (diplomatic agreements between Israel and several Arab states), which the regime in Damascus appears open to.
US Special Envoy Tom Barrack has described the recent clashes as “worrisome”, calling for de-escalation and emphasising the need for
a peaceful, inclusive outcome for all stakeholders – including the Druze, Bedouin tribes, the Syrian government, and Israeli forces.
Given the deep-rooted political divisions, competing regional agendas, and unresolved demands from minority groups, the unrest in southern Syria is unlikely to end soon.
Despite another temporary ceasefire, underlying tensions remain. Further clashes are not only possible but highly probable.
Ali Mamouri 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.
But what makes a power “great” in the realm of international relations?
Unlike other states, great powers possess a capacity to shape not only their immediate surroundings but the global order itself – defining the rules, norms and structures that govern international politics. Historically, they have been seen as the architects of world systems, exercising influence far beyond their neighborhoods.
The notion of great powers came about to distinguish between the most and least powerful states. The concept gained currency after the 1648 Peace of Westphalia and the Congress of Vienna in 1815 – events in Europe that helped establish the notion of sovereign states and the international laws governing them.
Whereas the great powers of the previous eras – for example, the Roman Empire – sought to expand their territory at almost every turn and relied on military power to do so, the modern great power utilizes a complex tapestry of diplomatic pressure, economic leverage and the assertions of international law. The order emerging out of Westphalia enshrined the principles of national sovereignty and territorial integrity, which allowed these powers to pursue a balance of power as codified by the Congress of Vienna based on negotiation as opposed to domination.
This transformation represented a momentous development in world politics: At least some portion of the legitimacy of a state’s control was now realized through its relationships and capacity to keep the peace, rather than resting solely on its ability to use force.
From great to ‘super’
Using their material capabilities – economic strength, military might and political influence – great powers have been able to project power across multiple regions and dictate the terms of international order.
In the 19th-century Concert of Europe, the great powers – Britain, France, Austria, Prussia and Russia – collectively managed European politics, balancing power to maintain stability. Their influence extended globally through imperial expansion, trade and the establishment of norms that reflected their priorities.
During the 20th century, the Cold War brought a stark distinction between great powers and other states. The U.S. and the Soviet Union, as the era’s two “superpowers,” dominated the international system, shaping it through a rivalry that encompassed military alliances, ideological competition and economic systems. Great powers in this context were not merely powerful states but the central actors defining the structure of global politics.
Toward a multipolar world
The post-Cold War period briefly ushered in a unipolar moment, with the U.S. as the sole great power capable of shaping the international system on a global scale.
However, the emergence of new centers of power, particularly China and to a lesser extent Russia, has brought the unipolar era to a close, ushering in a multipolar world where the distinctive nature of great powers is once again reshaped.
In this system, great powers are states with the material capabilities and strategic ambition to influence the global order as a whole.
And here they differ from regional powers, whose influence is largely confined to specific areas. Nations such as Turkey, India, Australia, Brazil and Japan are influential within their neighborhoods. But they lack the global reach of the U.S. or China to fundamentally alter the international system.
Instead, the roles of these regional powers is often defined by stabilizing their regions, addressing local challenges or acting as intermediaries in great power competition.
Challenging greatness
Yet the multipolar world presents unique challenges for today’s great powers. The diffusion of power means that no single great power can dominate the system as the U.S. did in the post-Cold War unipolar era.
Instead, today’s great powers must navigate complex dynamics, balancing competition with cooperation. For instance, the rivalry between Washington and Beijing is now a defining feature of global politics, spanning trade, technology, military strategy and ideological influence. Meanwhile, Russia’s efforts to maintain its great power status have resulted in more assertive, though regionally focused, actions that nonetheless have global implications.
Great powers must also contend with the constraints of interdependence. The interconnected nature of the global economy, the proliferation of advanced technologies and the rise of transnational challenges such as climate change and pandemics limit the ability of any one great power to unilaterally dictate outcomes. This reality forces great powers to prioritize their core interests while finding ways to manage global issues through cooperation, even amid intense competition.
As the world continues to adjust to multiple centers of power, the defining feature of great powers remains an unmatched capacity to project influence globally and define the parameters of the international order.
Whether through competition, cooperation or conflict, the actions of great powers will, I believe, continue to shape the trajectory of the global system, making their distinctiveness as central players in international relations more relevant than ever.
Andrew Latham 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.
Nigeria’s former president, Muhammadu Buhari, who died in London on 13 July aged 82, was one of two former military heads of state who were later elected as civilian presidents. Buhari was the military head of state of Nigeria from 31 December 1983 to 27 August 1985 and president from 2015 to 2023.
The other Nigerian politician to have been in both roles is former president Olusegun Obasanjo . He was a military ruler between 1976 and 1979 and elected president between 1999 and 2007.
Buhari led Nigeria cumulatively for nearly a decade. His time as military head of state was marked with a war against corruption but he couldn’t do as much during his time as president under democratic rule.
As a political scientist who once served in the Nigerian Army, I believe that former president Buhari’s government’s war on terrorism was largely underwhelming, despite promises and early gains.
In his elected role, Buhari maintained a modest personal lifestyle and upheld electoral transitions. Nevertheless his presidency was marred by economic mismanagement, a failure to implement bold structural reforms, ethnic favouritism, and an unfulfilled promise of change.
He did leave tangible infrastructural footprints, a focus on agriculture, and foundational efforts in transparency and anti-corruption.
So his mark on Nigeria’s development trajectory was mixed.
Early years
Buhari was born on 17 December 1942, to Adamu and Zulaiha Buhari in Daura, Katsina State, north-west Nigeria. He was four years old when his father died. He attended Quranic school in Katsina. He was a Fulani, one of the major ethnic nationalities in Nigeria.
After completing his schooling, Buhari joined the army in 1961. He had military training in the UK, India and the United States as well as Nigeria.
In 1975 he was appointed military governor of North Eastern State (now Borno State), after being involved in ousting Yakubu Gowon in a coup that same year. He served as governor for a year.
Buhari later became federal commissioner for petroleum resources, overseeing Nigeria’s petroleum industry under Obasanjo. Obasanjo had become head of state in 1976 when Gowon’s successor, Murtala Muhammed, was assassinated in a failed coup that year.
In September 1979, he returned to regular army duties and commanded the 3rd Armoured division based in Jos, Plateau State, north central. Nigeria’s Second Republic commenced that year after the election of Shehu Shagari as president.
The coup that truncated the Shagari government on 31 December 1983 saw the emergence of Buhari as Nigeria’s head of state.
Buhari’s junta years
Buhari headed the military government for just under two years. He was ousted in another coup on 27 August 1985.
While at the helm he vowed that the government would not tolerate kick-backs, inflation of contracts and over-invoicing of imports. Nor would it condone forgery, fraud, embezzlement, misuse and abuse of office and illegal dealings in foreign exchange and smuggling.
Eighteen state governors were tried by military tribunals. Some of the accused received lengthy prison sentences, while others were acquitted or had their sentences commuted.
His government also enacted the notorious Decree 4 under which two journalists, Nduka Irabor and Dele Thompson, were jailed. The charges stemmed from three articles published on the reorganisation of Nigeria’s diplomatic service.
Buhari also instituted austerity measures and started a “War Against Indiscipline” which sought to promote positive values in the country. Authoritarian methods were sometimes used in its implementation. Soldiers forced Nigerians to queue, to be punctual and to obey traffic laws.
He also instituted restrictions on press and political freedoms. Labour unions were not spared either. Mass retrenchment of Nigerians in the public service was carried out with impunity.
While citizens initially welcomed some of these measures, growing discontent on the economic front made things tougher for the regime.
Buhari’s dream to lead Nigeria again through the ballot box failed in 2003, 2007 and 2011. To his credit, he didn’t give up. An alliance of opposition parties succeeded in getting him elected in 2015.
The legacy he left is mixed.
Buhari’s government deepened national disunity.
His appointments, often skewed in favour of the northern region and his Fulani kinsmen, fuelled accusations of tribalism and marginalisation. His perceived affinity with Fulani herdsmen, despite widespread violence linked to some of them, further eroded public trust in his leadership.
His anti-corruption mantra largely did not succeed. While some high-profile recoveries were made, critics argue that his anti-corruption war was selective and heavily politicised.
Currently, his Central Bank governor is on trial for corruption charges.
The performance of the economy was also dismal under his tenure. Not all these problems could be laid at his feet. Nevertheless his inability to tackle the country’s underlying problems, such as insecurity, inflation and rising unemployment, all contributed. He presided over two recessions, rising unemployment, inflation, and a weakened naira.
He did, however, succeed on some fronts.
He tried with infrastructure. The Lagos-Ibadan expressway, a major road, was almost completed and he got the railways working again, completing the Abuja-Kaduna and Lagos-Ibadan lines. He also completed the Second Niger Bridge.
There was an airport revitalisation programme which led to improvements in Lagos, Abuja and Port Harcourt airports.
He also initiated some social investment schemes like N-Power, N-Teach and a school feeding programme. They provided temporary jobs for some and gave some poor people more money in their pockets. N-Power is a youth empowerment programme designed to combat unemployment, improve social development and provide people with relevant skills.
These programmes later became mired in corruption which only became known after he left office.
There was also an Anchor Borrowers Scheme to make the country more sufficient in rice production. Again, it got enmeshed in corruption and some of its officials are currently standing trial.
In the fight against corruption, the Buhari administration made some progress through the Treasury Single Account, which improved financial transparency in public institutions. The Whistle Blower Policy also led to the recovery of looted funds.
Buhari oversaw a deterioration of Nigeria’s security landscape. Banditry, farmer-herder clashes, kidnapping and separatist agitations escalated.
In 2015 Buhari campaigned on a promise to defeat Boko Haram and restore territorial integrity in the north-east. Initially, his administration made some progress. Boko Haram was driven out of several local government areas it once controlled, and major military operations such as Operation Lafiya Dole were launched to reclaim territory.
However, these initial successes were not sustained. Boko Haram splintered, giving rise to more brutal factions like the Islamic State West Africa Province. This group continued to launch deadly attacks.
Buhari’s counter-terrorism strategy was often reactive, lacking a clear long-term doctrine. The military was overstretched and under-equipped. Morale issues and allegations of corruption in the defence sector undermined operations.
Intelligence coordination remained poor, while civil-military relations suffered due to frequent human rights abuses by security forces. Community trust in the government’s ability to provide security dwindled.
Buhari’s second coming as Nigeria’s leader carried high expectations, but he under-delivered.
Kester Onor 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.
A series of atrocity sites of the Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia have been formally entered onto the World Heritage list, as part of the 47th session of the World Heritage Committee.
This is not only important for Cambodia, but also raises important questions for atrocity sites in Australia.
Before this, the World Heritage list only recognised seven “sites of memory” associated with recent conflicts, which UNESCO defines as “events having occurred from the turn of the 20th century” under its criterion vi. These sat within a broader list of more than 950 cultural sites.
In recent years, experts have intensely debated the question of whether a site associated with recent conflict could, or should, be nominated and evaluated for World Heritage status. Some argue such listings would contradict the objectives of UNESCO and its spirit of peace, which was part of the specialised agency’s mandate after the destruction of two world wars.
Sites associated with recent conflicts can be divisive. For instance, when Japan nominated the Hiroshima Peace Memorial, both China and the United States objected and eventually disassociated from the decision. The US argued the nomination lacked “historical perspective” on the events that led to the bomb’s use. Meanwhile, China argued listing the property would not be conducive for peace as other Asian countries and peoples had suffered at the hands of the Japanese during WWII.
Heritage inscriptions risk reinforcing societal divisions if they conserve a particular memory in a one-sided way.
Nonetheless, the World Heritage Committee decided in 2023 to no longer preclude such sites for inscription. This was done partly in recognition of how these sites may “serve the peace-building mission of UNESCO”.
Shortly after, three listing were added: the ESMA Museum and Site of Memory, a former clandestine centre for detention, torture and extermination in Argentina; memorial sites of the Rwandan genocide at Nyamata, Murambi, Gisozi and Bisesero; and funerary and memory sites of the first world war in Belgium and France.
A number of legacy sites associated with Nelson Mandela’s human rights struggle in South Africa were also added last year.
Atrocities of the Khmer Rouge
The recently inscribed Cambodian Memorial Sites include prisons S-21 (now known as Tuol Sleng Genocide Museum) and M-13, as well as the execution site Choeung Ek.
These sites were nominated for their value in showing the development of extreme mass violence in relation to the security system of the Khmer Rouge in 1975–79. They also have value as places of memorialisation, peace and learning.
The Khmer Rouge developed its methods of disappearance, incarceration and torture of suspected “enemies” during the civil conflict of 1970–75. It established a system of local-level security centres in so-called “liberated” areas.
One of these centres was known as M-13, a small, well-hidden prison in the country’s rural southwest. A man named Kaing Guek Eav – also called Duch – was responsible for prisoners at M-13.
Shortly after the entire country fell to the Khmer Rouge in April 1975, Duch was assigned to lead the headquarters of the regime’s security system: a large detention and torture centre known as S-21.
Under his instruction, tens of thousands of people were detained in inhumane conditions, tortured and interrogated. Many detainees were later taken to the outskirts of the city to be brutally killed and buried in pits at a place called Choeung Ek.
The sites operated until early 1979, when the Khmer Rouge was forced from power.
The S-21 facility and the mass graves at Choeung Ek have long been memorialised as the Tuol Sleng Genocide Museum and the Choeung Ek Genocidal Centre.
However, the former M-13 site shows few visual clues to its prior use, and has only recently been investigated by an international team led by Cambodian archaeologist and museum director Hang Nisay. The site is on an island in a small river that forms the boundary between the Kampong Chhnang and Kampong Speu provinces.
Further research, site protection and memorialisation activities will now be supported, with help from locals.
From repression to reflection
The Cambodian memorial sites have been recognised as holding “outstanding universal value” for the way they evidence one of the 20th century’s worst atrocities, and are now places of memory.
In its nomination dossier for these sites, Cambodia drew on findings from the Khmer Rouge Tribunal to verify and link the conflict and the sites.
In 2010, the tribunal found Duch guilty of crimes against humanity and grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions. Duch was sentenced to 30 years in prison (which eventually turned into life imprisonment). He died in 2020.
While courts such as the International Criminal Court have previously examined the destruction of heritage as an international crime, drawing on legal findings to assert heritage status is an unusual inverse. It raises important questions about the legacies of former UN-supported tribunals and the ongoing implications of their findings.
The recent listings also raise questions for Australia, which has many sites of documented mass killing associated with colonisation and the frontier wars that lasted into the 20th century.
Might Australia nominate any of these atrocity sites in the future? And could other processes such as truth-telling, reparation and redress support (or be supported by) such nominations?
Rachel Hughes has consulted to UNESCO Cambodia.
Maria Elander 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.
Long before pesticides reach lethal doses, they can disrupt hormones, impair brain function and change fish behaviour. Many of these behaviours are essential for healthy ecosystems.
In a new study, my colleagues and I found that pesticides affect many different behaviours in fish. Overall, the chemical pesticides make fish less sociable and interactive. They spend less time gathering in groups, become less protective of their territory, and make fewer attempts to mate.
Imagine the ocean without the vibrant schools of fish we’ve come to love – only isolated swimmers drifting about. Quietly, ecosystems begin to unravel, long before mass die-offs hit the news.
Australia is a major producer and user of pesticides, with more than 11,000 approved chemical products routinely used in agricultural and domestic settings. Remarkably, some of these chemicals remain approved in Australia despite being banned in other regions such as the European Union due to safety concerns.
When a tractor or plane sprays pesticides onto crops, it creates a mist of chemicals in the air to kill crop pests. After heavy rain, these chemicals can flow into roadside drains, filter through soil, and slowly move into rivers, lakes and oceans.
Fish swim in this diluted chemical mixture. They can absorb pesticides through their gills or eat contaminated prey.
At high concentrations, mass fish deaths can result, such as those repeatedly observed in the Menindee Lakes. However, doses in the wild often aren’t lethal and more subtle effects can occur. Scientists call these “sub-lethal” effects.
One commonly investigated sub-lethal effect is a change in behaviour – in other words, a change in the way a fish interacts with its surrounding environment.
Our previous research has found most experiments have looked at the impacts on fish in isolation, measuring things such as how far or how fast they swim when pesticides are present.
But fish aren’t solitary — they form groups, defend territory and find mates. These behaviours keep aquatic ecosystems stable. So this time we studied how pesticides affect these crucial social behaviours.
Pesticide exposure makes fish less social
Our study extracted and analysed data from 37 experiments conducted around the world. Together, these tested the impacts of 31 different pesticides on the social behaviour of 11 different fish species.
The evidence suggests pesticides make fish less social, and this finding is consistent across species. Courtship was the most severely impacted behaviour – the process fish use to find and attract mates. This is particularly alarming because successful courtship is essential for healthy fish populations and ecosystem stability.
Next, we found pesticides such as the herbicide glyphosate, which can disrupt brain function and hormone levels had the strongest impacts on fish social behaviours. This raises important questions about how brain function and hormones drive fish social behaviour, which could be tested by scientists in the future.
For example, scientists could test how much a change in testosterone relates to a change in territory defence. Looking at these relationships between what’s going on inside the body mechanisms and outward behaviour will help us better understand the complex impacts of pesticides.
We also identified gaps in the current studies. Most existing studies focus on a limited number of easy-to-study “model species” such as zebrafish, medaka and guppies. They also often use pesticide dosages and durations that may not reflect real-world realities.
Addressing these gaps by including a range of species and environmentally relevant dosages is crucial to understanding how pesticides affect fish in the wild.
One of the experiments in our study involved convict surgeonfish, which gather in large groups or ‘shoals’. Damsea, Shutterstock
Behaviour is a blind spot in regulation
Regulatory authorities should begin to recognise behaviour as a reliable and important indicator of pesticide safety. This can help them catch pesticide pollution early, before mass deaths occur.
Scientists play a crucial role too. By following the same methods, scientists can produce comparable results. A standardised method then provides regulators the evidence needed to confidently assess pesticide risks.
Together, regulatory authorities and scientists can find a way to use behavioural studies to help inform policy decisions. This will help to prevent mass deaths and catch pesticide impacts early on.
Leave no stone unturned in restoring our waters
Rivers, lakes, oceans and reefs are bearing the brunt of an ever-growing human footprint.
So far, much of the spotlight has focused on reducing carbon emissions and managing overfishing — and rightly so. But there’s another, quieter threat drifting beneath the surface: the chemicals we use.
Pesticides used on farms and in gardens are being detected everywhere, even iconic ecosystems such as the Great Barrier Reef. As we have shown, these pesticides can have disturbing effects even at low concentrations.
Now is the time to cut pesticide use and reduce runoff. Through switching to less toxic chemicals and introducing better regulations, we can reduce the damage. If we act with urgency, we can limit the impacts pesticides have on our planet.
Kyle Morrison 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.
“Imagine her tenderly pressing her soft lips against yours”, writes one incel on Reddit, before concluding, “you will never get to experience this because your skeleton is too small or the bones in your face are not the right shape”.
In his debut book, The Male Complaint, Simon Copland escorts his readers through the manosphere and into the minds of its inhabitants. He illustrates how boys and men who are “terrifyingly normal” become attracted to the manosphere’s grim logic – and the cognitive distortions of anti-feminist influencers like Andrew Tate and Jordan Peterson.
While mainstream debates often cite toxic masculinity as the cause of online misogyny, Copland, a writer and researcher at the Australian National University, shifts the blame to a deeper cultural malaise. It’s caused, he argues, by the cruel optimism of the manosphere, the multiple social and economic crises of late-stage capitalism and a collective nihilistic misery in which complaint becomes futile and destruction “the only way out”.
Review: The Male Complaint – Simon Copland (Polity)
The manosphere is a network of loosely related blogs and forums devoted to “men’s interests” – sites like The Rational Male, Game Global and the subreddits ForeverAlone, TheRedPill and MensRights. These online communities, separate in their specific beliefs, are united by their misogynistic ideas – and anti-women and anti-diversity sentiments.
They’re also united by the growing tendency of the men in these communities towards nihilistic violence: not only against others, but also against themselves.
In The Male Complaint, Copland relays his dismay at discovering “a constant stream” of suicide notes on Reddit, including a subreddit, IncelGraveyard, which catalogues close to 100 suicide notes and letters posted by self-identified incels.
Since I was a kid I was fed up with ‘Don’t worry, it will get better’, ‘You will find someone’ […] it’s not even that I want a SO (significant other) anymore. Women are awful. People are awful. I have no friends.
For Copland, the violence incels inflict on themselves is a form of passive nihilism. Incels “don’t just express disgust and despair at the world, but in themselves – their looks, body, lives, personality, intelligence, and more”.
Who’s in the manosphere?
The manosphere includes men’s rights activists, pick-up artists and “Men Going Their Own Way” (male separatists who avoid contact with women altogether). And of course, incels: men who believe they are unable to find a romantic or sexual partner due to their perceived genetic inferiority and oppression.
Incels also blame their problems on women’s alleged hypergamy: the theory women seek out partners of higher social or economic status and therefore marry “up”. Put another way, hypergamy, a concept rooted in evolutionary psychology, is the belief “women are hard-wired to be gold diggers”.
Rollo Tomassi, the so-called “godfather of the manosphere”, complains on his blog that “women love opportunistically”, while “men believe that love matters for the sake of it”.
According to Tomassi, the “cruel reality” of modern dating is that men are romantics who are “forced to be realists”, while women are realists whose use “romanticisms to effect their imperatives”. Tomassi complains:
Our girlfriends, our wives, daughters and even our mothers are all incapable of idealized love […] By order of degrees, hypergamy will define who a woman loves and who she will not, depending upon her own opportunities and capacity to attract it.
Ten years ago, these communities were largely regarded as fringe groups. Today, their ideology has infiltrated the mainstream.
On Sunday, ABC TV’s Compass reported that misogyny is on the rise in Australian classrooms, with female teachers sharing their experiences of sexual assault and harassment on school grounds – ranging from boys writing stories about gang raping their teachers to masturbating “over them” in the bathrooms. One student even pretended to stab his pregnant teacher as a “joke”.
A 2025 report published by UN Women shows 53% of women have experienced some form of technology-facilitated, gender-based violence. The dark side of digitalisation disproportionately affects young women aged between 18 and 24, LGBTQI+ women, women who are divorced or who live in the city, and women who participate in online gaming.
‘Biologically bad’?
Copland argues that simplified critiques of toxic masculinity minimise the problem of male violence. They fail to consider the context and history of gendered behaviour, assuming toxic traits are somehow innate and unique to men, rather than the product of social expectations and relations.
This, in turn, promotes the idea that male violence derives from something “biologically bad” in the nature of masculinity itself. As Copland explains, “this is embedded in the term ‘toxic’, which makes it sound like men’s bodies have become diseased or infected”.
Blaming toxic masculinity for digital misogyny also embraces a form of smug politics in which disaffected men are dismissed as degenerates who are fundamentally different to “us” (meaning the activist left and leftist elites). They are “cellar dwellers”, “subhuman freaks”, or “virgin losers” who need to be either enlightened or locked up. “We”, on the other hand, are educated, progressive, superior.
This kind of rhetoric, as Copland explains, is unhelpful. It does not create the conditions for changing the opinions, narratives and futures of manosphere men because it does not allow people to understand their complaints and where those concerns come from – even if we do not agree with them.
Belittling attitudes and demeaning discourses alienate men who already feel socially isolated. This pushes those men further to the fringes – into the hands of “manfluencers” who claim to understand.
‘Not having love becomes everything’
The manosphere, Copland observes, is not “an aberration that is different and distinct from the rest of the world”, nor is it a community that exists solely on the “dark corners of the web”.
Rather, the manosphere, as an echo chamber, enables and encourages what Copland calls “the male complaint”: a sense of collective pain or “injury” so intrinsic to the group’s identity, it cannot be redressed.
As injured subjects who believe their problems are caused through no fault of their own, manosphere men cannot mend the “wound” they believe society has inflicted upon them. Their “marginalisation” and injured status are the lens through which they view themselves and the world.
In the Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW) community, for example, some men talk about the movement as a hospital where “physicians of the male soul” use different “methods of healing” to treat the “illness of gynocentric-induced disease weighing them down”. These methods include “self-improvement” strategies that are designed to build men’s power and wealth: purchasing gym equipment, investing in the stock market, even abstaining from pornography and sex.
Others in the MGTOW community are vocally anti-victim: “You can live an extraordinary life,” one man says to another, “but you’re wasting your time on complaints and negativity”.
Even when they disagree, though, manosphere men frame women and feminism as the enemy. In this way, the machinery of the manosphere capitalises on men’s discontent, reflects that messaging back to them and displaces their anger and hurt onto an easy scapegoat.
As Copland observes, it is easier for men to blame women for their unhappiness than it is to blame the complex systems of capitalism: “if love and sex is everything, then not having love becomes everything as well”.
Blackpilled incels, lookism and anonymity
This preoccupation with intimacy is central to the incel community. It is exemplified by the various artefacts Copland embeds in his book – memes and posts from the manosphere itself.
Blackpilled incels are a subgroup of incels who believe their access to romantic and sexual relationships is doomed because of “lookism”: the belief women choose sexual partners based solely on their physical features.
Blackpilled ideology attributes romantic failure to genetically unalterable aspects of the human body, such as one’s height or skull shape. Some blackpilled incels, who call themselves wristcels, even blame their lack of sexual success on the width of their wrists.
This logic is countered by research that demonstrates men, in fact, show stronger preferences for physical attractiveness than women, with women tending to prioritise education level and earning potential.
On Reddit, incels often imagine and bitterly dismiss the potential for love and intimacy because of their looks. Ohsineon/Pexels
The manosphere, however, amplifies this type of thinking and filters out information that challenges these ideas and opinions, increasing group polarisation. Despite its promise of solidarity, the manosphere isolates boys and men, and ultimately distances them from their wider community. This segregation results in a deep sense of alienation – these boys and men become stuck in a perpetual cycle of ideological reinforcement.
The manosphere thrives on anonymity, writes Copland, which only reinforces the idea it is not designed to foster deep relationships or connections.
No silver bullets
The sense of community the manosphere claims to offer is a sham; its alienating structures do not offer boys and men genuine belonging and connection, or real solutions to their problems.
“From one day to the next, the ability to communicate depends on the whims of hidden engineers,” writes media studies professor Mark Andrejevic of online networks more broadly. The manosphere, like other virtual constructs, is subject to manipulation by those who control the infrastructure and the rules of engagement.
More than this, the manosphere does not provide an alternative to complaint. When complaint is the only option, writes Copland, nihilism and violence are the inevitable result.
When nothing matters, there are no consequences to anything, including violence […] Manosphere men do not look to convince others, but rather seek their destruction. Destruction is the outlet they find to deal with their complaint.
That’s what makes the manosphere so dangerous.
‘Popular boys must be punished’
In 2014, 22-year-old Elliot Rodger, a British-American college student, embarked on an hours-long stabbing and shooting spree in the university town of Isla Vista, California, killing six and injuring 14. On the morning of May 23 – the “Day of Retribution” – Rodger emailed a 140-page “manifesto” to his family, friends and therapists. He also uploaded several YouTube videos in which he lamented his inability to find a girlfriend, the “hedonistic pleasures” of his peers and his painful existence of “loneliness, rejection, and unfilled desires”.
In his memoir-manifesto, Rodger – the supposed “patron saint of inceldom” – explains the motive for his violence:
I had nothing left to live for but revenge. Women must be punished for their crimes of rejecting such a magnificent gentleman as myself. All of those popular boys must be punished for enjoying heavenly lives and having sex with all the girls while I had to suffer in lonely virginity.
Four years later, in April 2018, Alek Minassian, a self-described incel, drove a rented van onto a busy sidewalk in Toronto, killing 11 (nine of them women) and injuring many more. On Facebook, Minassian explained that his actions were part of the “incel rebellion” led by the “Supreme Gentleman Elliot Rodger”. Later, Minassian told police, “I feel like I accomplished my mission”.
Rodger, too, ended his final YouTube video with a similar message: “If I can’t have you girls, I will destroy you”.
In his book, Copland even draws a parallel between the Westfield Bondi Junction attack and the explanation for attacker Joel Cauchi’s violence, put forward by his father just two days after the attack: “To you, he is a monster. To me, he was a very sick boy […] he wanted a girlfriend and he’s got no social skills and he was frustrated out of his brain”.
In fact, Cauchi suffered from treatment-resistant schizophrenia and had been unmedicated at the time of the attack: “after almost two decades of treatment, Cauchi had no regular psychiatrist, was not on any medications to treat his schizophrenia and had no family living nearby”. The multifaceted causes of Cauchi’s crime are more complex than misogynistic violence.
Indeed, the pieces of the manosphere puzzle, when put together, reveal a sobering image of the male complaint. However, they demonstrate misogyny is bad for everyone – not just women and girls.
As Copland concludes:
The manosphere promises men that it can make their lives better […] But it really cannot deliver. The promises it offers are not real, and in many cases make things worse […] This is how cruel optimism works, always offering, but never delivering.
‘It’s the combinations’
Recent evidence suggests there is no single route to radicalisation, and no single cause of violent extremism. Rather, complex interactions between push, pull, and personal factors are the root causes of male violence.
The Netflix sensation Adolescence – the harrowing story of a 13-year-old boy who is arrested and charged with murder – is powered by a single question: why did Jamie kill Katie?
In attempting to answer this question, critics and fans have offered a range of explanations: bullying, low self-esteem, emotional dysregulation, obsession with love and sex, deprivation of love and sex, the manosphere. The real answer is less obvious and infinitely more complex. It can be found in a simple line of dialogue, spoken at the end of the series by Jamie’s sister.
“It’s the combinations,” Lisa says. “Combinations are everything.”
In this moment, Lisa is justifying her outfit to her parents as they await Jamie’s trial. But subtextually, her statement doubles as the most likely explanation for his actions. And it’s the closest explanation for why some boys and men commit extreme acts of violence: the combinations.
If this article has raised issues for you, or if you’re concerned about someone you know, call Lifeline on 13 11 14.
Kate Cantrell 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.
Global warming has picked up pace since around 2010, leading to the recent string of record warm years. Why this is happening is still unclear, and among the biggest questions in climate science today. Our new study reveals that reductions in air pollution – particularly in China and east Asia – are a key reason for this faster warming.
Cleanup of sulphur emissions from global shipping has been implicated in past research. But that cleanup only began in 2020, so it’s considered too weak to explain the full extent of this acceleration. Nasa researchers have suggested that changes in clouds could play a role, either through reductions in cloud cover in the tropics or over the North Pacific.
One factor that has not been well quantified, however, is the effect of monumental efforts by countries in east Asia, notably China, to combat air pollution and improve public health through strict air quality policies. There has already been a 75% reduction in east Asian sulphur dioxide emissions since around 2013, and that cleanup effort picked up pace just as global warming began accelerating.
Our study addresses the link between east Asian air quality improvements and global temperature, building on the efforts of eight teams of climate modellers across the world.
We have found that polluted air may have been masking the full effects of global warming. Cleaner air could now be revealing more of the human-induced global warming from greenhouse gases.
In addition to causing millions of premature deaths, air pollution shields the Earth from sunlight and therefore cools the surface. There has been so much air pollution that it has held human-induced warming in check by up to 0.5°C over the last century.
With the cleanup of air pollution, something that’s vital for human health, this artificial sunshade is removed. Since greenhouse gas emissions have kept on increasing, the result is that the Earth’s surface is warming faster than ever before.
Modelling the cleanup
Our team used 160 computer simulations from eight global climate models. This enabled us to better quantify the effects that east Asian air pollution has on global temperature and rainfall patterns. We simulated a cleanup of pollution similar to what has happened in the real world since 2010. We found an extra global warming of around 0.07°C.
While this is a small number compared with the full global warming of around 1.3°C since 1850, it is still enough to explain the recent acceleration in global warming when we take away year-to-year swings in temperature from natural cycles such as El Niño, a climate phenomenon in the Pacific that affects weather patterns globally.
Based on long-term trends, we would have expected around 0.23°C of warming since 2010. However, we actually measured around 0.33°C. While the additional 0.1°C can largely be explained by the east Asian air pollution cleanup, other factors include the change in shipping emissions and the recent accelerated increase in methane concentrations in the atmosphere.
Air pollution causes cooling by reflecting sunlight or by changing the properties of clouds so they reflect more sunlight. The cleanup in east Asian air pollution influences global temperatures because it reduces the shading effect of the pollution over east Asia itself. It also means less pollution is blown across the north Pacific, causing clouds in the east Pacific to reflect less sunlight.
The pattern of these changes across the North Pacific simulated in our models matches that seen in satellite observations. Our models and temperature observations also show relatively strong warming over the North Pacific, downwind from east Asia.
The main source of global warming is still greenhouse gas emissions, and a cleanup of air pollution was both necessary and overdue. This did not cause the additional warming but rather, removed an artificial cooling that has for a time helped shield us from some of the extreme weather and other well-established consequences of climate change.
Global warming will continue for decades. Indeed, our past and future emissions of greenhouse gases will affect the climate for centuries. However, air pollution is quickly removed from the atmosphere, and the recent acceleration in global warming from this particular unmasking may therefore be short-lived.
Don’t have time to read about climate change as much as you’d like?
Laura Wilcox receives funding from the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC), the Research Council of Norway, the Clean Air Fund, and Horizon Europe.
Bjørn H. Samset receives funding from the Research Council of Norway, the Clean Air Fund, and Horizon Europe.
U.S. President Donald Trump and then-Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro attend a joint news conference at the White House on March 19, 2019.Jim Lo Scalzo-Pool/Getty Images
After much back-and-forth over several months, President Donald Trump announced on July 9, 2025, that he planned to levy a 50% tariff on Brazilian exports to the United States. While Brazilian authorities, along with leaders of most other countries, have been expecting new tariffs given their centrality to Trump’s economic agenda, the announcement seemingly caught Brazilian officials off guard, as trade negotiations between the two nations were still ongoing.
Brazil President Lula da Silva was quick in reacting, stating his country could respond in kind, if tariffs indeed come into effect on Aug. 1.
There has been much speculation about the reasons behind Trump’s decision and timing, with some onlookers noting the proximity to the recent meeting of the BRICS nations, a grouping of emerging economies, including Brazil, which had already drawn Trump’s ire. Others argued that this was a protective measure to defend key U.S. industries, such as steel, which have been facing continued difficulties against cheaper products from Brazil.
The clearest answer, however, came from Trump himself.
In a letter to Lula, the U.S. president indicated that his main grievance with Brazil is in fact the trial that former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro faces in front of that country’s highest court. The former far-right firebrand is charged for refusing to recognize the result of the last presidential election in October 2022 and for allegedly having led an attempted coup against the democratic institutions and rule of law in January 2023. If convicted, Bolsonaro and some of his closest associates could face long prison sentences.
A history of meddling
The only economic rationale mentioned in Trump’s letter, that of a deficit that his country is said to face with Brazil, is belied by the numbers. The U.S. has sustained consistent surpluses in trade with the South American nation for close to two decades now.
And Steve Bannon, Trump’s former adviser, active cheerleader and primary conduit between the Trump camp and Bolsonaro, was even more blunt than the U.S. president. In an interview with one of Brazil’s main news site, he stated: “Stop the trial and we will reverse the tariffs.”
As the history of U.S.-Latin American relations ably demonstrates, this is far from the first time Washington has meddled in the region in order to satisfy its own political proclivities. Indeed, particularly during the Cold War, a slew of U.S. decision-makers actively intervened to support friendly right-wing regimes or to otherwise remove from power administrations considered unacceptably independent.
This was nonetheless the first time in recent history that the official U.S. position is that a foreign nation should face harsh economic punishment unless its current government illegally circumvent the judicary’s constitutional role to stop a major investigation against someone accused of high crimes.
Trump-Bolsonaro: Mutual admiration
Of course, Trump’s overt support for Bolsonaro is not surprising, nor new. Their relationship of mutual admiration and ideological affinity hearkens back to the latter’s first presidential campaign in 2018, when he was labeled, to great reciprocal delight, the “Trump of the Tropics.”
During the subsequent two years when their terms coincided (2019-2000), both men pledged to have a mutual special relationship, though to little consequence – no consequential bilateral projects were put in place.
Both leaders also share the experience of having failed to obtain a second consecutive term and having supported the derailment of the peaceful transfer of power.
Now that Trump is back in power, Bolsonaro hopes that the U.S. president will come to his rescue.
Seeking to obtain explicit support, Bolsonaro’s third son, Eduardo, a member of Brazil’s lower house of congress and his family’s most eloquent international voice, took a leave from his legislative duties and moved to the U.S. early this year. He did so to lobby on behalf of his father based on the fallacious argument that Lula is a left-wing dictator, that Bolsonaro faces a politically motivated trial, and that the U.S. government should act against Lula’s administration.
Given Trump’s tariff notice and the explicit reasons he gave for it, it seems safe to assume that Eduardo’s actions paid dividends.
Which direction will Brazil head?
Like the U.S., Brazil is deeply fractured along left and right political lines. So it was no surprise that the local reactions to Trump’s announcement manifested along ideological camps.
Despite their leader’s legal travails, Bolsonaro’s supporters remain very influential in politics, the media and among important economic areas, such as the agribusiness sector. Whether Trump’s decision will serve to help people rally around and in support of Lula and against a case of foreign interference is unclear. Lula’s initial pronouncement that Brazil would respond in kind was seen favorably among his supporters, though the opposition and many in the media pinned the blame on Lula for not being able to forge compromise with the Trump administration.
Key industrialists in the powerful state of Sao Paulo, where Bolsonaro’s powerful ally Tarcisio de Freitas serves as governor, will be the first ones affected by the new tariffs. But the pain will likely spread into other activities, including in the countryside.
And given that the bulk of the country’s agricultural exports go to China rather than to the U.S., the important question is whether these powerful exporters will act pragmatically and work with Lula to enlarge trade with the Asian giant and other countries, or whether they will continue to act ideologically and continue to support Bolsonaro’s enduring partnership with Trump against their own economic interests.
Dialogue has been a hallmark of Brazil’s diplomacy, and even in the middle of these latest heated diplomatic exchanges, Lula reiterated his willingness to negotiate. It is unclear, though, whether the Trump adminstration’s actions in Latin America will be conducted on the basis of rationality and actual numbers, or if they will indeed bring back some old ideologically driven behaviors of picking sides in the internal political disputes of foreign nations. Should one consider at face value Trump’s latest letter, there is reason for concern.
Rafael R. Ioris 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.
Over the weekend, the Indian Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau released a preliminary report on last month’s crash of Air India flight 171, which killed 260 people, 19 of them on the ground.
The aim of a preliminary report is to present factual information gathered so far and to inform further lines of inquiry. However, the 15-page document has also led to unfounded speculation and theories that are currently not supported by the evidence.
Here’s what the report actually says, why we don’t yet know what caused the crash, and why it’s important not to speculate.
What the preliminary report does say
What we know for certain is that the aircraft lost power in both engines just after takeoff.
According to the report, this is supported by video footage showing the deployment of the ram air turbine (RAT), and the examination of the air inlet door of the auxiliary power unit (APU).
The RAT is deployed when both engines fail, all hydraulic systems are lost, or there is a total electrical power loss. The APU air inlet door opens when the system attempts to start automatically due to dual engine failure.
The preliminary investigation suggests both engines shut down because the fuel flow stopped. Attention has now shifted to the fuel control switches, located on the throttle lever panel between the pilots.
Data from the enhanced airborne flight recorder suggests these switches may have been moved from “run” to “cutoff” three seconds after liftoff. Ten seconds later, the switches were moved back to “run”.
The report also suggests the pilots were aware the engines had shut down and attempted to restart them. Despite their effort, the engines couldn’t restart in time.
We don’t know what the pilots did
Flight data recorders don’t capture pilot actions. They record system responses and sensor data, which can sometimes lead to the belief they’re an accurate representation of the pilot’s actions in the cockpit.
While this is true most of the time, this is not always the case.
In my own work investigating safety incidents, I’ve seen cases in which automated systems misinterpreted inputs. In one case, a system recorded a pilot pressing the same button six times in two seconds, something humanly impossible. On further investigation, it turned out to be a faulty system, not a real action.
We cannot yet rule out the possibility that system damage or sensor error led to false data being recorded. We also don’t know whether the pilots unintentionally flicked the switches to “cutoff”. And we may never know.
As we also don’t have a camera in the cockpit, any interpretation of pilots’ actions will be made indirectly, usually through the data sensed by the aircraft and the conversation, sound and noise captured by the environmental microphone available in the cockpit.
We don’t have the full conversation between the pilots
Perhaps the most confusing clue in the report was an excerpt of a conversation between the pilots. It says:
In the cockpit voice recording, one of the pilots is heard asking the other why did he cutoff. The other pilot responded that he did not do so.
This short exchange is entirely without context. First, we don’t know who says what. Second, we don’t know when the question was asked – after takeoff, or after the engine started to lose power? Third, we don’t know the exact words used, because the excerpt in the report is paraphrased.
Finally, we don’t know whether the exchange referred to the engine status or the switch position. Again, we may never know.
What’s crucial here is that the current available evidence doesn’t support any theory about intentional fuel cutoff by either of the pilots. To say otherwise is unfounded speculation.
We don’t know if there was a mechanical failure
The preliminary report indicates that, for now, there are no actions required by Boeing, General Electric or any company that operates the Boeing 787-8 and/or GEnx-1B engine.
This has led some to speculate that a mechanical failure has been ruled out. Again, it is far too early to conclude that.
What the preliminary report shows is that the investigation team has not found any evidence to suggest the aircraft suffered a catastrophic failure that requires immediate attention or suspension of operations around the world.
This could be because there was no catastrophic failure. It could also be because the physical evidence has been so badly damaged that investigators will need more time and other sources of evidence to learn what happened.
Why we must resist premature conclusions
In the aftermath of an accident, there is much at stake for many people: the manufacturer of the aircraft, the airline, the airport, civil aviation authority and others. The families of the victims understandably demand answers.
It’s also tempting to latch onto a convenient explanation. But the preliminary report is not the full story. It’s based on very limited data, analysed under immense pressure, and without access to every subsystem or mechanical trace.
The final report is still to come. Until then, the responsible position for regulators, experts and the public is to withhold judgement.
This tragedy reminds us that aviation safety depends on patient and thorough investigation – not media soundbites or unqualified expert commentary. We owe it to the victims and their families to get the facts right, not just fast.
Guido Carim Junior has received funding from Boeing R&D Australia to conduct research projects in the past five years.
Grok, the artificial intelligence (AI) chatbot embedded in X (formerly Twitter) and built by Elon Musk’s company xAI, is back in the headlines after calling itself “MechaHitler” and producing pro-Nazi remarks.
The developers have apologised for the “inappropriate posts” and “taken action to ban hate speech” from Grok’s posts on X. Debates about AI bias have been revived too.
But the latest Grok controversy is revealing not for the extremist outputs, but for how it exposes a fundamental dishonesty in AI development. Musk claims to be building a “truth-seeking” AI free from bias, yet the technical implementation reveals systemic ideological programming.
This amounts to an accidental case study in how AI systems embed their creators’ values, with Musk’s unfiltered public presence making visible what other companies typically obscure.
So how do developers imbue an AI with such values and shape chatbot behaviour? Today’s chatbots are built using large language models (LLMs), which offer several levers developers can lean on.
What makes an AI ‘behave’ this way?
Pre-training
First, developers curate the data used during pre-training – the first step in building a chatbot. This involves not just filtering unwanted content, but also emphasising desired material.
We don’t know if these data were used, or what quality-control measures were applied.
Fine-tuning
The second step, fine-tuning, adjusts LLM behaviour using feedback. Developers create detailed manuals outlining their preferred ethical stances, which either human reviewers or AI systems then use as a rubric to evaluate and improve the chatbot’s responses, effectively coding these values into the machine.
A Business Insider investigation revealed xAI’s instructions to human
“AI tutors” instructed them to look for “woke ideology” and “cancel culture”. While the onboarding documents said Grok shouldn’t “impose an opinion that confirms or denies a user’s bias”, they also stated it should avoid responses that claim both sides of a debate have merit when they do not.
System prompts
The system prompt – instructions provided before every conversation – guides behaviour once the model is deployed.
To its credit, xAI publishes Grok’s system prompts. Its instructions to “assume subjective viewpoints sourced from the media are biased” and “not shy away from making claims which are politically incorrect, as long as they are well substantiated” were likely key factors in the latest controversy.
These prompts are being updated daily at the time of writing, and their evolution is a fascinating case study in itself.
Guardrails
Finally, developers can also add guardrails – filters that block certain requests or responses. OpenAI claims it doesn’t permit ChatGPT “to generate hateful, harassing, violent or adult content”. Meanwhile, the Chinese model DeepSeek censors discussion of Tianamen Square.
Ad-hoc testing when writing this article suggests Grok is much less restrained in this regard than competitor products.
The transparency paradox
Grok’s Nazi controversy highlights a deeper ethical issue: would we prefer AI companies to be explicitly ideological and honest about it, or maintain the fiction of neutrality while secretly embedding their values?
Every major AI system reflects its creator’s worldview – from Microsoft Copilot’s risk-averse corporate perspective to Anthropic Claude’s safety-focused ethos. The difference is transparency.
Musk’s public statements make it easy to trace Grok’s behaviours back to Musk’s stated beliefs about “woke ideology” and media bias. Meanwhile, when other platformsmisfirespectacularly, we’re left guessing whether this reflects leadership views, corporate risk aversion, regulatory pressure, or accident.
But there’s a crucial difference. Tay’s racism emerged from user manipulation and poor safeguards – an unintended consequence. Grok’s behaviour appears to stem at least partially from its design.
The real lesson from Grok is about honesty in AI development. As these systems become more powerful and widespread (Grok support in Tesla vehicles was just announced), the question isn’t whether AI will reflect human values. It’s whether companies will be transparent about whose values they’re encoding and why.
Musk’s approach is simultaneously more honest (we can see his influence) and more deceptive (claiming objectivity while programming subjectivity) than his competitors.
In an industry built on the myth of neutral algorithms, Grok reveals what’s been true all along: there’s no such thing as unbiased AI – only AI whose biases we can see with varying degrees of clarity.
Aaron J. Snoswell previously received research funding from OpenAI in 2024–2025 to develop new evaluation frameworks for measuring moral competence in AI agents.
