Category: The Conversation – USA

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Ambuj Tewari, Professor of Statistics, University of Michigan

You’ve just finished a strenuous hike to the top of a mountain. You’re exhausted but elated. The view of the city below is gorgeous, and you want to capture the moment on camera. But it’s already quite dark, and you’re not sure you’ll get a good shot. Fortunately, your phone has an AI-powered night mode that can take stunning photos even after sunset.

Here’s something you might not know: That night mode may have been trained on synthetic nighttime images, computer-generated scenes that were never actually photographed.

As artificial intelligence researchers exhaust the supply of real data on the web and in digitized archives, they are increasingly turning to synthetic data, artificially generated examples that mimic real ones. But that creates a paradox. In science, making up data is a cardinal sin. Fake data and misinformation are already undermining trust in information online. So how can synthetic data possibly be good? Is it just a polite euphemism for deception?

As a machine learning researcher, I think the answer lies in intent and transparency. Synthetic data is generally not created to manipulate results or mislead people. In fact, ethics may require AI companies to use synthetic data: Releasing real human face images, for example, can violate privacy, whereas synthetic faces can offer similar benefit with formal privacy guarantees.

There are other reasons that help explain the growing use of synthetic data in training AI models. Some things are so scarce or rare that they are barely represented in real data. Rather than letting these gaps become an Achilles’ heel, researchers can simulate those situations instead.

Another motivation is that collecting real data can be costly or even risky. Imagine collecting data for a self-driving car during storms or on unpaved roads. It is often much more efficient, and far safer, to generate such data virtually.

How synthetic data is made

Training an AI model requires large amounts of data. Like students and athletes, the more an AI is trained, the better its performance tends to be. Researchers have known for a long time that if data is in short supply, they can use a technique known as data augmentation. For example, a given image can be rotated or scaled to yield additional training data. Synthetic data is data augmentation on steroids. Instead of making small alterations to existing images, researchers create entirely new ones.

But how do researchers create synthetic data? There are two main approaches. The first approach relies on rule-based or physics-based models. For example, the laws of optics can be used to simulate how a scene would appear given the positions and orientations of objects within it.

The second approach uses generative AI to produce data. Modern generative models are trained on vast amounts of data and can now create remarkably realistic text, audio, images and videos. Generative AI offers a flexible way to produce large and diverse datasets.

Both approaches share a common principle: If data does not come directly from the real world, it must come from a realistic model of the world.

Downsides and dangers

It is also important to remember that while synthetic data can be useful, it is not a panacea. Synthetic data is only as reliable as the models of reality it comes from, and even the best scientific or generative models have weaknesses.

Researchers have to be careful about potential biases and inaccuracies in the data they produce. For example, researchers may simulate the home-insurance ecosystem to help detect fraud, but those simulations could embed unfair assumptions about neighborhoods or property types. The benefits of such data must be weighed against risks to fairness and equity.

It’s also important to maintain a clear distinction between models and simulations on one hand and the real world on the other. Synthetic data is invaluable for training and testing AI systems, but when an AI model is deployed in the real world, its performance and safety should be proved with real, not simulated, data for both technical and ethical reasons.

Future research on synthetic data in AI is likely to face many challenges. Some are ethical, some are scientific, and others are engineering problems. As synthetic data becomes more realistic, it will be more useful for training AI, but it will also be easier to misuse. For example, increasingly realistic synthetic images can be used to create convincing deepfake videos.

I believe that researchers and AI companies should keep clear records to show which data is synthetic and why it was created. Clearly disclosing which parts of the training data are real and which are synthetic is a key aspect of responsibly producing AI models. California’s law, “Generative artificial intelligence: training data transparency,” set to take effect on Jan. 1, 2026, requires AI developers to disclose if they used synthetic data in training their models.

Researchers should also study how mistakes in simulations or models can lead to bad data. Careful work will help keep synthetic data transparent, trustworthy and reliable.

Keeping it real

Most AI systems learn by finding patterns in data. Researchers can improve their ability to do this by adding synthetic data. But AI has no sense of what is real or true. The desire to stay in touch with reality and to seek truth belongs to people, not machines. Human judgment and oversight in the use of synthetic data will remain essential for the future.

The next time you use a cool AI feature on your smartphone, think about whether synthetic data might have played a role. Our AIs may learn from synthetic data, but reality remains the ultimate source of our knowledge and the final judge of our creations.

Ambuj Tewari receives funding from NSF and NIH.

– ref. When fake data is a good thing – how synthetic data trains AI to solve real problems – https://theconversation.com/when-fake-data-is-a-good-thing-how-synthetic-data-trains-ai-to-solve-real-problems-265180

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Antar A. Tichavakunda, Associate Professor of Education, University of California, Santa Barbara

Black student unions have been a vital part of many Black college students’ lives for more than 60 years. But since 2024, Black student unions have lost their institutional support, campus space and funding with the rise of anti-diversity, equity and inclusion laws in Utah and Alabama.

Black student unions now face a new wave of pressure, as more than 400 colleges and universities under the Trump administration have rebranded or eliminated programs and centers that promote diversity, equity and inclusion.

Amy Lieberman, education editor at The Conversation U.S., spoke with Antar A. Tichavakunda, a scholar of race and higher education, to better understand what Black student unions are and how they influence Black students’ experiences in higher education.

Why are Black student unions important, particularly for Black students?

Aside from Black fraternities and sororities, Black student unions were among the first ethnic student organizations at colleges to be established. A group of students started the first Black student union in 1968 at San Francisco State University. This happened during the Black Campus Movement, when Black college students advocated for themselves, making demands for resources, respect, spaces and programs to support Black student life. At the time, Mariana Waddy, a student at San Francisco State University and the first president of a Black student union, said, “This college had done little for Black students except try to whitewash them.”

Black students wanted to make the school more engaging and responsive to their needs.

Today, these student unions are essential for Black student life on college campuses. They offer a place of belonging, where Black students can figuratively exhale from a predominately white campus or student environment. Black student life on campus isn’t a given – just because there are Black students, it doesn’t mean there is a Black student community. These unions allow Black students to come together as a community.

What do these unions look like and do, day to day?

Black student unions largely operate independently. They have various events, like cookouts and parties. If a campus is dealing with an issue or some kind of racist occurrence, for example, Black student union leaders will come to the forefront to be an advocate for Black students. They try to engage with students and university leaders on whatever is happening.

How are political pressure and policy shifts influencing these unions?

The University of Utah and the University of Alabama announced in 2024 that they would no longer fund or support their schools’ Black student unions. Universities typically give these unions a certain amount of money, as they do with other student-led groups. With this funding pulled, it is going to make it harder for Black student unions to exist. Where are they going to meet? Will they have to pay for a place to meet off campus?

And if you want to encourage students to come to Black student events, you will likely want to have food for them. If you want to arrange a trip to a conference or host a movie night, those things cost money and require space.

These cuts have drained time, energy and resources from Black student unions.

Now, Black student leaders are filling gaps where funding, staff, spaces and infrastructure used to exist to support and meet the needs of Black student life.

The Trump administration’s attempts to remove funding from and shut down diversity, equity and inclusion programs could lead Black student union leaders to act as unpaid diversity workers if and when these positions at universities are eliminated.

This work also involves organizing social events and support services for Black students. It means continuing to creatively advocate for Black student needs.

Full-time students leading Black student unions now find themselves doing unpaid labor that helps sustain Black communities and the universities that profit from them.

How exactly are universities profiting from Black student unions’ work?

Here’s one example: I observed a university tapping student leaders from a Black engineering group to represent the university’s school of engineering at public events. These leaders might have had to skip class or lose study time to be available for this event. But the university wanted other people, including prospective Black students, to know that there were already Black students at this school.

Black students in these positions have mentioned to me that sometimes administrators will pressure them to show up for panels and other events as a form of marketing. I think most of these requests are well-meaning. But I also know that Black student representatives and leaders place pressure on themselves to also show up for their community and school.

Their presence and visibility help universities have a more welcoming environment. They have an active, vibrant community because of Black student unions and leaders. Organizations like this create community and lead to more positive experiences for students. This joy can lead to more students staying in school.

If I am a Black parent touring a college with my child and don’t see any Black students participating in the tour or on campus, that sends a message to a prospective Black student – will I, or my child, belong here?

What message are Black student unions receiving with these policy shifts?

I think the message to Black student unions is that you all have to fend for yourselves. That is what inequality is all about, having different expectations for different students.

Cuts to diversity, equity and inclusion work signals to Black students that they are not valued and that, if they want to have meaningful experiences as a Black student community, they will have to do this work themselves. You can discern an institution’s values in their budget priorities. If there is nothing being materially invested in Black students, how can you say you support them?

My research shows that Black students act independently to achieve their goals. They create places of joy and belonging for themselves and others, navigating institutions to create full, dynamic lives.

Black students have historically played the cards they were dealt, even if they were inequitable. They have worked to create traditions and lives within and outside of higher education’s campus walls. Some Black student unions may look different going forward, but I have full faith they will continue.

Antar A. Tichavakunda 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. Black student unions are under pressure – here’s what they do and how they help Black students find community – https://theconversation.com/black-student-unions-are-under-pressure-heres-what-they-do-and-how-they-help-black-students-find-community-268754

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Caroline Light, Senior Lecturer on Studies of Women, Gender, and Sexuality, Harvard University

Twenty years ago, Florida Gov. Jeb Bush signed the first “stand your ground” law, calling it a “good, common-sense, anti-crime issue.”

The law’s creators promised it would protect law-abiding citizens from prosecution if they used force in self-defense. Then-Florida state Rep. Dennis Baxley, who cosponsored the bill, claimed – in the wake of George Zimmerman’s controversial acquittal for the killing of Trayvon Martin – that “we’re really safer if we empower people to stop violent acts.”

I’m a historian who has studied the roots of stand your ground laws. I published a book on the subject in 2017. My ongoing investigation of the laws suggests that, 20 years on, they have not made communities any safer, nor have they helped prevent crime. In fact, there is reliable evidence they have done just the opposite.

In the past 20 years, stand your ground has spread to 38 states.

Then, in September 2025, an appellate court struck down Florida’s long-standing ban on the open carry of firearms.

Florida’s attorney general, James Uthmeier, quickly announced that open carry is now “the law of the state,” directing law enforcement not to arrest people who display handguns in public.

Under the state’s permitless carry law, enacted in 2023, adults without a criminal record also don’t need a permit or any training to carry firearms publicly.

In my view, this combination of stand your ground, open carry and permitless carry is likely to make the Sunshine State far less safe.

Let’s look at the evidence.

What ‘stand your ground’ means

Under traditional self-defense law, a person had a duty to retreat – to try to avoid a violent confrontation if they could safely do so – before resorting to deadly force.

The main exception to the duty to retreat was known as the castle doctrine, whereby people could defend themselves, with force if necessary, if they were attacked in their own homes.

Stand your ground laws effectively expand the boundaries of the castle doctrine to the wider world, removing the duty to retreat and allowing people to use lethal force anywhere they have a legal right to be, as long as they believe it’s necessary to prevent death or serious harm.

On paper, the expansion of the right to self-defense may sound reasonable. But in practice, stand your ground laws have blurred the line between self-defense and aggression by expanding legal immunity for some who claim self-defense and shifting the burden of proof to prosecutors.

While supporters of these laws claim they mitigate crime and make people safer, evidence shows the opposite. The nonpartisan RAND Corp. discovered that states adopting stand your ground laws experienced significant increases in homicide, typically between 8% and 11% higher than before the laws took effect.

A study of violent crime in Florida revealed a 31.6% increase in firearm homicides following the 2005 passage of the stand your ground law. There is no credible evidence that these laws deter crime.

On the contrary, evidence shows that stand your ground laws lower the legal, moral and psychological costs of pulling the trigger.

Stand your ground and race

While the language of stand your ground laws is race-neutral, their enforcement is not. Data from the Urban Institute and the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights show that in states with stand your ground laws, homicides are far more likely to be deemed “justified” when the shooter is white and the victim is Black.

I’ve found that these laws have redefined not only when force is justified but who is justified in using force.

In my assessment, these laws don’t create racial bias. Rather, they magnify the biases already present in our criminal legal system. They give broader discretion to a legal system in which law enforcement officers, judges, prosecutors and juries often hold unacknowledged biases that associate Black men with criminality, while perceiving white people who say they were defending themselves as credible.

That dynamic is visible in a growing multitude of cases, such as the shootings of unarmed teenagers Trayvon Martin, Jordan Davis, Renisha McBride and Ralph Yarl.

Each instance illustrates how stand your ground transforms ordinary mistakes or misunderstandings into lethal outcomes, and how armed citizens’ claims of “reasonable fear” often reflect racial stereotypes more than objective threats.

A dangerous mix

Florida’s legalization of open carry intersects with the state’s permitless carry and stand your ground laws in alarming ways. Open carry increases the visibility – and perceived legitimacy – of guns in everyday life.

Combined with the removal of licensing procedures and training requirements, laws that broaden the right to use deadly force create a permissive environment for opportunistic violence.

When everyone is visibly armed, every encounter can look like a potential threat. And when the law tells you that you don’t have to back down, that perception can turn lethal in seconds.

Florida has become a model for what gun rights advocates call “freedom” but what public health experts see as a recipe for more shootings and more death.

National implications: ‘Reciprocity’ and expansion

Two decades later, stand your ground laws have spread, in various forms, to 38 states. While 30 states have legislatively enacted stand your ground statutes like Florida’s, eight others implement stand your ground through case law and jury instructions that effectively remove the duty to retreat.

On top of this, 29 states have enacted laws allowing permitless carry, and 47 technically allow open carry, though restrictions vary across the states.

President Donald Trump has made clear he wants to take this deregulatory approach nationwide. While on the campaign trail, he promised to sign a “concealed-carry reciprocity” law, which would require all states to allow people from states with permissive laws to exercise those rights in all 50. “Your Second Amendment does not end at the state line,” he announced in a 2023 video.

If that vision becomes reality, it would mean the most permissive state laws will set the standard for the entire country. National reciprocity would allow Floridians, and other gun owners from permitless carry states, to carry their firearms – and potentially claim stand your ground immunity – in any other state, including those with stricter rules and lower rates of firearm death and injury.

This prospect raises deep questions about states’ rights, safety and justice. Research shows that stand your ground laws increase homicide and exacerbate racial disparities. National reciprocity would export those effects nationwide.

In my view, the convergence of stand your ground, open carry and national reciprocity marks the culmination of a 20-year experiment in armed citizenship. The results are clear: more people armed, more shootings and more deaths “justified.”

The question now is whether the rest of the nation will follow Florida’s lead.

Read more stories from The Conversation about Florida.

Caroline Light is affiliated with GVPedia and collaborates with Giffords.

– ref. Florida’s new open carry ruling combines with ‘stand your ground’ to create new freedoms – and new dangers – https://theconversation.com/floridas-new-open-carry-ruling-combines-with-stand-your-ground-to-create-new-freedoms-and-new-dangers-267496

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Bryn Beeder, Visiting Instructor in Kinesiology, Nutrition, and Health, Miami University

For many, holidays are synonymous with quality time and long-standing traditions. Typically laden with delicious foods, it’s not uncommon to eat more during the holidays than you usually would.

You likely know that feeling of being too stuffed – the point when you’re pleasantly satisfied one moment and uncomfortably full the next. On top of that physical discomfort can come extra helpings of guilt for eating more than you wanted or expected.

The physical and psychological pressure of holiday meals can be challenging. As a registered dietitian, I want to assure you that your body knows what to do with that extra food and drink, and that your overall health and well-being are defined by much more than a few days of indulgence. In fact, the experience of eating and sharing food may play a valuable role in creating lasting, positive memories of the holiday season.

Still, if you’ve ever wondered what’s happening inside your body after a big meal, you’re not alone. Understanding a bit about how digestion works can make the post-meal feelings a little less mysterious and a lot less stressful.

Slowing down digestion

Food is made up of three main macronutrients: carbohydrates, proteins and fats. Your gastrointestinal tract uses both mechanical and chemical processes to break down these nutrients into their simplest form so they can be absorbed and used for energy, repair and carrying out biological functions.

When you eat a large holiday meal, you will likely consume more of all the macronutrients than you usually would, in a shorter period of time. The larger quantity of food will require a bit more time to digest, meaning it will move more slowly along your GI tract.

Protein and fats also naturally take longer to break down. While more carbohydrate-rich foods, such as a granola bar or a glass of orange juice, give you a quick burst of energy, adding more protein- and fat-rich foods, such as eggs or chicken, to your meal provides energy that lasts longer.

In this case, the slower digestive process can actually be beneficial for steady energy and appetite control.

Physical discomfort

Rest assured, your digestive system will carry on no matter how big the meal. Rather, the question is how long digestion will take and whether that may cause some temporary discomfort along the way.

When you eat, your stomach stretches to accommodate the food you consumed. As the stomach works to pass food contents into the small intestine, there is an increased chance of heartburn – a backflow of acidic stomach contents that can cause a burning sensation in your chest or sour taste in your mouth. Extra food can also lead to stomach pain, nausea, gas and bloating, as well as a general sluggish feeling.

Even before the first bite, your body begins preparing for digestion. The first sight and smell of food increases your body’s production of saliva and stomach acid in anticipation of the work ahead.

When the workload is greater than usual, your body temporarily expends more energy to fuel the digestive process, both in breaking down macronutrients and in absorbing that fuel for use later. As a result, it is typical to feel more tired after a large meal.

To reduce the physical discomfort of digestion, try staying upright after a meal. While lying down may be tempting, it can increase stomach pain and the risk of heartburn. Give your body time and let gravity work in your favor by staying upright for at least two to three hours after eating. A 10- to 15-minute walk can also be beneficial to the digestive process, increasing stomach contractions and overall blood flow to the GI tract. This can in turn move food out of the stomach and into the small intestine more efficiently.

Moving past food guilt

One day of indulgence alone will not cause permanent weight gain or lasting changes to your physical health. But repeated patterns of food guilt can, over time, lead to an unhealthy relationship to food.

Beyond digestion, the way you think and talk about food can be just as important as how you feel after eating. Food does not have moral value, and yet it is easy to become caught in the habit of labeling foods as “good” or “bad.” This mindset often shows up during the holidays. Think about how often you hear yourself or others say, “I was good all morning so I can eat more tonight” or “I’m going to be bad and have the pie, too.” How you speak about food directly shapes how you feel about eating it and about yourself.

Food can also bring positive emotions and good memories. When your body recognizes a strong emotion tied to a food smell, the emotional center of your brain – the amygdala – alerts the part of your brain that forms and stores long-term memories, your hippocampus. This explains why the smell of grandma’s pie can transport you to a vivid memory.

This holiday season, focus less on the calorie count and more on the company, the laughter, and the scents and flavors that make your traditions special. Eat the foods that bring you comfort and connection; you’re nourishing more than just your body.

Bryn Beeder 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. Don’t stress out about overeating during the holidays – a dietitian explains how a day of indulgence won’t harm your overall health – https://theconversation.com/dont-stress-out-about-overeating-during-the-holidays-a-dietitian-explains-how-a-day-of-indulgence-wont-harm-your-overall-health-269240

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Lauren Beitelspacher, Professor of Marketing, Babson College

’Tis the season for giving – and that means ’tis the season for shopping. Maybe you’ll splurge on a Black Friday or Cyber Monday deal, thinking, “I’ll just return it if they don’t like it.” But before you click “buy,” it’s worth knowing that many retailers have quietly tightened their return policies in recent years.

As a marketing professor, I study how retailers manage the flood of returns that follow big shopping events like these, and what it reveals about the hidden costs of convenience. Returns might seem like a routine part of doing business, but they’re anything but trivial. According to the National Retail Federation, returns cost U.S. retailers almost US$890 billion each year.

Part of that staggering figure comes from returns fraud, which includes everything from consumers buying and wearing items once before returning them – a practice known as “wardrobing” – to more deceptive acts such as falsely claiming an item never arrived.

Returns also drain resources because they require reverse logistics: shipping, inspecting, restocking and often repackaging items. Many returned products can’t be resold at full price or must be liquidated, leading to lost revenue. Processing returns also adds labor and operational expenses that erode profit margins.

How e-commerce transformed returns

While retailers have offered return options for decades, their use has expanded dramatically in recent years, reflecting how much shopping habits have changed. Before the rise of e-commerce, shopping was a sensory experience: Consumers would touch fabrics, try on clothing and see colors in natural light before buying. If something didn’t work out, customers brought it back to the store, where an associate could quickly inspect and restock it.

Online shopping changed all that. While e-commerce offers convenience and variety, it removes key sensory cues. You can’t feel the material, test the fit or see the true color. The result is uncertainty, and with uncertainty comes higher rates of returns. One analysis by Capital One suggests that the rate for returns is almost three times higher for online purchases than for in-store purchases.

When the COVID-19 pandemic hit, the move toward online shopping went into overdrive. Even hesitant online shoppers had to adapt. To encourage purchases, many retailers introduced or expanded generous return policies. The strategy worked to boost sales, but it also created a culture of returning.

In 2020, returns accounted for 10.6% of total U.S. retail sales, nearly double the prior year, according to the National Retail Federation data. By 2021, that had climbed to 16.6%. Unable to try things on in stores, consumers began ordering multiple sizes or styles, keeping one and sending the rest back. The behavior was rational from a shopper’s perspective but devastatingly expensive for retailers.

The high cost of convenience

Most supply chains are designed to move in one direction: from production to consumption. Returns reverse that flow. When merchandise moves backward, it adds layers of cost and complexity.

In-store returns used to be simple: A customer would take an item back to the store, the retailer would inspect the product, and, if it was in good condition, it would go right back on the shelf. Online returns, however, are far more cumbersome. Products can spend weeks in transit and often can’t be resold – by the time they arrive, they may be out of season, obsolete or no longer in their original packaging.

Logistics costs compound the problem. During the pandemic, consumers grew accustomed to free shipping. That means retailers now often pay twice: once to deliver the item and again to retrieve it.

Now, in a post-pandemic world, retailers are trying to strike a balance – maintaining customer goodwill without sacrificing profitability. One solution is to raise prices, but especially today, with inflation in the headlines, shoppers are sensitive to price hikes. The other, more common approach is to tighten return policies.

In practice, that’s taken several forms. Some retailers have begun charging small flat fees for returns, even when a customer mails an item back at their own expense. For example, the direct-to-consumer retailer Curvy Sense offers customers unlimited returns and exchanges of an item for an initial $2.98 price. Others have shortened their return windows. Over the summer, for example, beauty retailers Sephora and Ulta reduced their return window from 60 days to 30.

Many brands now attach large, conspicuous “do not remove” tags to prevent consumers from wearing items and then sending them back. And increasingly, retailers are offering store credit rather than cash or credit card refunds, ensuring that returned sales at least stay within their company.

Few retailers advertise these changes prominently. Instead, they appear quietly in the fine print of return policies – policies that are now longer, more specific and far less forgiving than they once were.

As we head into the busiest shopping season of the year, it’s worth pausing before you click “purchase.” Ask yourself: Is this something I truly want – or am I planning to return it later?

Whenever possible, shop in person and return in person. And if you’re buying online, make sure you familiarize yourself with the return policy.

Lauren Beitelspacher 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. Retailers are quietly changing their return policies – here’s why you should be on the lookout this Black Friday – https://theconversation.com/retailers-are-quietly-changing-their-return-policies-heres-why-you-should-be-on-the-lookout-this-black-friday-266975

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Kelley Cours Anderson, Assistant Professor of Marketing, College of Charleston

Not long ago, the idea of getting paid to share your morning routine online would have sounded absurd. Yet today, influencers are big business: The global market is expected to surpass US$32 billion by the end of 2025.

Rooted in celebrity culture but driven by digital platforms, the influencer economy represents a powerful force in both commerce and culture. I’m an expert on digital consumer research, and I see the rise of influencers as an important evolution in the relationship between companies, consumers and creators.

Historically, brands leaned on traditional celebrities like musicians, athletes and actors to endorse their products. However, by the late 2000s, social media platforms opened the door for everyday people to build audiences. Initially, influencers were viewed as a low-cost marketing tactic. Soon, however, they became a central part of marketing strategies.

In the 2010s, influencer marketing matured into a global industry. Agencies and digital marketplaces emerged to professionalize influencer-brand matchmaking, and regulators like the Federal Trade Commission started paying more attention to sponsored content.

The rise of video and short-form content like TikTok and Reels in the mid-2010s and 2020s added authenticity and emotional immediacy. These dynamics deepened influencer-follower relations in ways that brands couldn’t easily replicate. Influencers are now recognized as not only content creators, but also as entrepreneurs and cultural producers.

Why people trust influencers

Social media influencers often foster what researchers call “parasocial relationships” – one-sided bonds where followers feel as if they personally know the influencer. While the concept has roots in traditional celebrity culture, influencers amplify it through consistent, seemingly authentic content.

This perceived intimacy helps explain why consumers often trust influencers more than brands. Though the parasocial relationship isn’t mutual, it feels real. That emotional closeness cultivates trust, a scarce but powerful currency in today’s economy.

The goal for many influencers may be financial independence, but the path begins with social and cultural capital, acquired through community connection, relatability and niche expertise. As an influencer’s following grows, so does their perceived legitimacy. Brands, in turn, recognize and tap into that legitimacy.

Although risks exist, like algorithmic incentives and commercial partnerships that undercut authenticity, many influencers successfully navigate this tension to preserve their community’s trust.

The many ways creators add value

Like any economy, the influencer economy revolves around value exchange. Followers spend their valuable resources – time and attention – in return for something meaningful. Researchers have identified several forms of value that influencers’ content can take:

• Connection, or what researchers call “social value”: Influencers often build tight-knit communities around shared interests. Through live chats, comments and relatable storytelling, they offer a sense of belonging.

• Fun, or “hedonic value”: Many influencers provide enjoyment using entertainment, humor and a touch of allure in their content. Think cat videos, TikTok dances and random acts of kindness that deliver joy and distraction from the day-to-day.

• Knowledge, or “epistemic value”: Creators offer informational or educational content to feed consumer curiosity. This can be through tutorials, product reviews or deep dives into niche topics.

• Usefulness, or “utilitarian value”: From life hacks to product roundups, like “Amazon must-haves,” influencers provide utilitarian or practical value to help simplify consumer decisions and solve everyday problems.

• Money, or “financial value”: People love finding a bargain. Discounts, affiliate links and deal alerts offer direct economic benefit to followers. Some influencers even launch their own products or digital courses, delivering long-term value through entrepreneurial spinoffs.

These forms of value often overlap, reinforcing trust, and can pay off financially for influencers. In fact, consumers are significantly more likely to trust user-generated content like influencer posts over brand-generated advertising.

Lessons for brands

First, there’s evidence that smaller is often stronger. Marketing researchers categorize influencers based on how many followers they have, and nano- and microinfluencers – defined as those with fewer than 10,000 and 100,000 followers, respectively – often generate stronger engagement than mega-influencers with more than 1 million. Influencers with smaller followings can interact with their communities more closely, making their endorsements feel more credible.

This has driven brands to focus on mid-tier and microinfluencers, where return on investment is often stronger. As a result, influencer agencies, brokers, platforms and trade associations have sprung up to facilitate these partnerships.

Second, brands should remember that influencers’ role in the market comes with new challenges. As the field continues to become more professionalized, it’s also become more complex. Like other entrepreneurs, influencers must keep up with shifting regulations – namely, FTC sponsorship guidelines – which can lead to hefty fines if violated. Many struggle to identify how to best file their taxes when they receive freebies they are expected to build content around. It can also be a challenge for influencers to keep up with continued algorithm tweaks from the multiple social media platforms where they publish.

Influencers manage more than content creation. Their role includes quickly responding to followers’ comments and managing communities, as well as handling trolls, all of which is stressful. Personal brand management adds another layer of pressure. As influencers gain more brand partnerships, they run the risk of being seen as “selling out.” Because parasocial trust depends on being viewed as authentic, aligning with the wrong brand or being too promotional can damage the very connection that built an influencer’s following. A single misstep can trigger public backlash.

While growing a following can bring brand recognition and financial independence, some influencers even fear that they will lose their own identity. Influencers can struggle with work-life balance, as this is not a nine-to-five job. It requires being “always on” and the constant blurred lines. Their lives become their livelihoods, with little separation between personal and professional identity.

In short, when engaging with influencers, strategic brands will recognize that they operate within an intense, high-pressure environment. Organizations such as the American Influencer Council offer support and advocacy, but industry-wide protections are lacking.

Influencers have earned a central place in consumer culture not just by selling products, but by offering emotional proximity, cultural relevance and value. They’re not just marketers – they’re creators, community leaders and entrepreneurs.

As the creator economy continues to grow, trust will remain its cornerstone. However, the next chapter will require thoughtful navigation of issues like regulation, platform ethics and creator well-being. Understanding influencers means recognizing both their creative work and the evolving market that now depends on them.

Kelley Cours Anderson 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. Why people trust influencers more than brands – and what that means for the future of marketing – https://theconversation.com/why-people-trust-influencers-more-than-brands-and-what-that-means-for-the-future-of-marketing-265718

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Jay Gulledge, Visiting Professor of Practice in Global Affairs, University of Notre Dame; University of Tennessee

You might not know it from the headlines, but there is some good news about the global fight against climate change.

A decade ago, the cheapest way to meet growing demand for electricity was to build more coal or natural gas power plants. Not anymore. Solar and wind power aren’t just better for the climate; they’re also less expensive today than fossil fuels at utility scale, and they’re less harmful to people’s health.

Yet renewable energy projects face headwinds, including in the world’s fast-growing developing countries. I study energy and climate solutions and their impact on society, and I see ways to overcome those challenges and expand renewable energy – but it will require international cooperation.

Falling clean energy prices

As their technologies have matured, solar power and wind power have become cheaper than coal and natural gas for utility-scale electricity generation in most areas, in large part because the fuel is free. The total global power generation from renewable sources saved US$467 billion in avoided fuel costs in 2024 alone.

As a result of falling prices, over 90% of all electricity-generating capacity added worldwide in 2024 came from clean energy sources, according to data from the International Renewable Energy Agency.

At the end of 2024, renewable energy accounted for 46% of global installed electric power capacity, with a record 585 gigawatts of renewable energy capacity added that year — about three times the total generating capacity in Texas.

Health benefits of leaving fossil fuels

Beyond affordability, replacing fossil fuels with renewable energy is healthier.

Burning coal, oil and natural gas releases tiny particles into the air along with toxic gases; these pollutants can make people sick. A recent study found air pollution from fossil fuels causes an estimated 5 million deaths worldwide a year, based on 2019 data.

For example, using natural gas to fuel stoves and other appliances releases benzene, a known carcinogen. The health risks of this exposure in some homes has been found to be comparable to secondhand tobacco smoke. Natural gas combustion has also been linked to childhood asthma, with an estimated 12.7% of U.S. childhood asthma cases attributable to gas stoves, according to one study.

Fossil fuels are also the leading sources of climate-warming greenhouse gases. When they’re burned to generate electricity or run factories, vehicles and appliances, they release carbon dioxide and other gases that accumulate in the atmosphere and trap heat near the Earth’s surface. That accumulation has been raising global temperatures and causing more heat stress, respiratory illnesses and the spread of disease.

Electrifying buildings, cars and appliances, and powering them with renewable energy, reduces these air pollutants while slowing climate change.

So what’s the problem?

In spite of the demonstrated economic and health benefits of transitioning to renewable energy, regulatory inertia, political gridlock and a lack of investment are holding back renewable energy deployment in much of the world.

In the United States, for example, major energy projects take an average of 4.5 years to permit, and approval of new transmission lines can take a decade or longer. A large majority of planned new power projects in the U.S. use solar power, and these delays are slowing the deployment of renewable energy.

The 2024 Energy Permitting Reform Act introduced by Sens. Joe Manchin, a Democrat from West Virginia, and John Barrasso, a Republican from Wyoming, to speed approvals failed to pass. Manchin called it “just another example of politics getting in the way of doing what’s best for the country.”

An even bigger challenge faces developing countries whose economies are growing fast.

These countries need to meet soaring energy demand. The International Energy Agency expects emerging economies to account for 85% of added electricity demand from 2025 through 2027. Yet renewable energy development lags in most of them. The main reason is the high price of financing renewable energy construction.

In many developing countries, wind and solar projects cost more to finance than coal or gas. Fossil projects have a longer history, and financial and policy mechanisms have been developed over decades to lower lender risk for those projects. These include government payment guarantees, stable fuel contracts and long-term revenue deals that help guarantee the lender will be repaid.

Both lenders and governments have less experience with renewable energy projects. As a result, these projects often come with weaker government guarantees. This raises the risk to lenders, so they charge higher interest rates, making renewable projects more expensive upfront, even if the projects have lower lifetime costs.

To lower borrowing costs, governments and international development banks can take steps to make renewable projects a safer bet for investors. For example, they can keep energy policies stable and use public funds or insurance to cover part of the lenders’ investment risk.

When investors trust they’ll get paid, interest rates drop dramatically and renewable energy becomes the cheaper option.

Without international cooperation to lower finance costs, developing economies could miss out on the renewable-energy revolution and lock in decades of growing greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels, making climate change worse.

The path ahead

To avoid the worst effects of climate change, countries have agreed to cut their greenhouse gas emissions over the next few decades.

Achieving this goal won’t be easy, but it is significantly less difficult now that renewable energy is more affordable over the long run than fossil fuels.

Switching the world’s power supply to renewable energy and electrifying buildings and local transportation would cut about half of today’s greenhouse-gas emissions. The other half comes from sectors where it is harder to cut emissions — steel, cement and chemical production, aviation and shipping, and agriculture and land use. Solutions are being developed but need time to mature. Good governance, political support and accessible finance will be critical for these sectors as well.

The transition to renewable energy offers big economic and health benefits alongside lower climate risks — if countries can overcome political obstacles at home and cooperate to expand financing for developing economies.

Jay Gulledge is affiliated with PSE Healthy Energy

– ref. Renewable energy is cheaper and healthier – so why isn’t it replacing fossil fuels faster? – https://theconversation.com/renewable-energy-is-cheaper-and-healthier-so-why-isnt-it-replacing-fossil-fuels-faster-269685

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Michael A. Little, Distinguished Professor Emeritus of Anthropology, Binghamton University, State University of New York

Curious Kids is a series for children of all ages. If you have a question you’d like an expert to answer, send it to CuriousKidsUS@theconversation.com.

---

If evolution is real, then why is it not happening now? – Dee, Memphis, Tennessee

---

Many people believe that we humans have conquered nature through the wonders of civilization and technology. Some also believe that because we are different from other creatures, we have complete control over our destiny and have no need to evolve. Even though lots of people believe this, it’s not true.

Like other living creatures, humans have been shaped by evolution. Over time, we have developed – and continue to develop – the traits that help us survive and flourish in the environments where we live.

I’m an anthropologist. I study how humans adapt to different environments. Adaptation is an important part of evolution. Adaptations are traits that give someone an advantage in their environment. People with those traits are more likely to survive and pass those traits on to their children. Over many generations, those traits become widespread in the population.

The role of culture

We humans have two hands that help us skillfully use tools and other objects. We are able to walk and run on two legs, which frees our hands for these skilled tasks. And we have large brains that let us reason, create ideas and live successfully with other people in social groups.

All of these traits have helped humans develop culture. Culture includes all of our ideas and beliefs and our abilities to plan and think about the present and the future. It also includes our ability to change our environment, for example by making tools and growing food.

Although we humans have changed our environment in many ways during the past few thousand years, we are still changed by evolution. We have not stopped evolving, but we are evolving right now in different ways than our ancient ancestors. Our environments are often changed by our culture.

We usually think of an environment as the weather, plants and animals in a place. But environments include the foods we eat and the infectious diseases we are exposed to.

A very important part of the environment is the climate and what kinds of conditions we can live in. Our culture helps us change our exposure to the climate. For example, we build houses and put furnaces and air conditioners in them. But culture doesn’t fully protect us from extremes of heat, cold and the sun’s rays.

Here are some examples of how humans have evolved over the past 10,000 years and how we are continuing to evolve today.

The power of the sun’s rays

While the sun’s rays are important for life on our planet, ultraviolet rays can damage human skin. Those of us with pale skin are in danger of serious sunburn and equally dangerous kinds of skin cancer. In contrast, those of us with a lot of skin pigment, called melanin, have some protection against damaging ultraviolet rays from sunshine.

People in the tropics with dark skin are more likely to thrive under frequent bright sunlight. Yet, when ancient humans moved to cloudy, cooler places, the dark skin was not needed. Dark skin in cloudy places blocked the production of vitamin D in the skin, which is necessary for normal bone growth in children and adults.

The amount of melanin pigment in our skin is controlled by our genes. So in this way, human evolution is driven by the environment – sunny or cloudy – in different parts of the world.

The food that we eat

Ten thousand years ago, our human ancestors began to tame or domesticate animals such as cattle and goats to eat their meat. Then about 2,000 years later, they learned how to milk cows and goats for this rich food. Unfortunately, like most other mammals at that time, human adults back then could not digest milk without feeling ill. Yet a few people were able to digest milk because they had genes that let them do so.

Milk was such an important source of food in these societies that the people who could digest milk were better able to survive and have many children. So the genes that allowed them to digest milk increased in the population until nearly everyone could drink milk as adults.

This process, which occurred and spread thousands of years ago, is an example of what is called cultural and biological co-evolution. It was the cultural practice of milking animals that led to these genetic or biological changes.

Other people, such as the Inuit in Greenland, have genes that enable them to digest fats without suffering from heart diseases. The Turkana people herd livestock in Kenya in a very dry part of Africa. They have a gene that allows them to go for long periods without drinking much water. This practice would cause kidney damage in other people because the kidney regulates water in your body.

These examples show how the remarkable diversity of foods that people eat around the world can affect evolution.

Diseases that threaten us

Like all living creatures, humans have been exposed to many infectious diseases. During the 14th century a deadly disease called the bubonic plague struck and spread rapidly throughout Europe and Asia. It killed about one-third of the population in Europe. Many of those who survived had a specific gene that gave them resistance against the disease. Those people and their descendants were better able to survive epidemics that followed for several centuries.

Some diseases have struck quite recently. COVID-19, for instance, swept the globe in 2020. Vaccinations saved many lives. Some people have a natural resistance to the virus based on their genes. It may be that evolution increases this resistance in the population and helps humans fight future virus epidemics.

As human beings, we are exposed to a variety of changing environments. And so evolution in many human populations continues across generations, including right now.

---

Hello, curious kids! Do you have a question you’d like an expert to answer? Ask an adult to send your question to CuriousKidsUS@theconversation.com. Please tell us your name, age and the city where you live.

And since curiosity has no age limit – adults, let us know what you’re wondering, too. We won’t be able to answer every question, but we will do our best.

Michael A. Little 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. If evolution is real, then why isn’t it happening now? An anthropologist explains that humans actually are still evolving – https://theconversation.com/if-evolution-is-real-then-why-isnt-it-happening-now-an-anthropologist-explains-that-humans-actually-are-still-evolving-266669

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Murat Haner, Assistant Professor, School of Criminology & Criminal Justice, Arizona State University

Political violence among rival partisans has been a deadly and destabilizing force throughout history and across the globe. It has claimed countless lives, deepened social divisions and even led to the collapse of democratic systems.

In recent history, political violence and its deadly consequences were seen in Italy after World War I when thousands of fascist supporters marched on Rome, the capital, threatening to overthrow the government unless Benito Mussolini was appointed prime minister. That kind of violence and its effects were also seen in 1930s Germany, where Adolf Hitler suppressed opposition and suspended civil liberties amid widespread unrest and factional violence.

Similar patterns occurred elsewhere in the decades that followed. Fascist movements used political violence and intimidation to seize or consolidate power, as seen in Spain under Francisco Franco, in Portugal under António de Oliveira Salazar and in Romania under the Iron Guard.

Today, many scholars, journalists, commentators and elected officials across the political spectrum have voiced alarm over escalating acts of violence in the United States, drawing parallels to Europe’s authoritarian past. Reports of politically motivated violence are distressingly common – ranging from mass shootings, car-ramming attacks and assaults at demonstrations to assassination attempts, kidnappings and threats targeting mayors, governors, political activists and members of Congress.

For example, threats of violence against members of Congress increased by more than 1,400%, from 902 in 2016 to an estimated 14,000 by the end of 2025, according to U.S. Capitol Police reports.

Political violence is certainly not new in American society, but current patterns differ in key ways. We found that, today, white nationalism is a key driver of support for political violence – a sign that white nationalism poses substantial danger to U.S. political stability.

In the 1970s, violence was political theater, aimed at drawing government and public attention to specific policies. Today, it’s personal and deadly, driven by a desire to annihilate.

Changing targets

In the 1970s, radical left-wing groups often targeted government property to send political messages.

Attacks included the anti–Vietnam War bombings carried out by the Weather Underground, as well as actions by groups such as the Symbionese Liberation Army and United Freedom Front. They struck government and corporate targets to protest imperialism, racism and economic inequality. These attacks were generally intended as statements rather than mass-casualty events, with perpetrators often issuing warnings beforehand to minimize harm.

Today, however, much of the violence is aimed directly at individuals, often with the intent to harm or kill political opponents.

These include incidents such as the 2017 shooting targeting Republican lawmakers at a congressional baseball practice, the 2022 hammer attack on Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s husband, Paul Pelosi, and the 2025 killing of Democrat Melissa Hortman, the former speaker of the Minnesota House, and her husband in what authorities described as a politically motivated assassination.

This resurgence of political violence has prompted intense academic and journalistic scrutiny. Numerous public opinion surveys have sought to gauge Americans’ approval of, or concern about, using violence against the government or political adversaries.

Initial estimates suggested nearly 1 in 4 Americans support political violence. But later studies identified flaws in the questions used to measure support for violence. Simply asking about violence in general or the use of force leaves too much room for interpretation.

Using more sophisticated questioning techniques results in lower estimates of public support for political violence.

Understanding what drives individuals to endorse political violence is essential for developing effective strategies to prevent it. As public opinion researchers who have studied Americans’ attitudes toward ideological extremism, political polarization and counterterrorism policy, we sought to advance our understanding of the factors underlying public support for political violence in the United States.

We aimed to do this in two ways: by using more specific questioning techniques and by identifying the factors associated with increased support for violence.

Who justifies political violence?

Our study focused specifically on white nationalism – a growing movement in the U.S. – as a driver of support for violence.

We asked a national sample of 1,300 Americans how justified or unjustified it would be “to take violent action against the U.S. government” in response to a range of government actions. This approach captures both approval of the use of violence and its political motivation.

We included nonpartisan government actions such as “the government violated or took away citizens’ rights and freedoms” and “the government violated the U.S. Constitution” along with hypothetical actions reflecting right or left-wing political causes. For example, a right-wing action would be to ban all abortions while a left-wing action would be to legalize all abortions.

Analyses revealed substantial support for violence against the government in response to the nonpartisan government actions. Half of the respondents indicated that violence would be justified if the government violated citizens’ rights, and 55% supported the use of violence as a response if the U.S. government committed unlawful violence against citizens. Nearly 40% said that violence would be justified if the government censored the news.

When we examined the factors behind these attitudes, a belief in white nationalism stood out above all others. But what, precisely, is white nationalism? It is more than simply identifying as white. Indeed, white nationalism is a sentiment found among some nonwhite Americans as well.

White nationalists are concerned about the increasing diversity of the American population and want to ensure that white citizens maintain a predominant influence in the country. To them, white citizens’ social, cultural and political values are superior to those of nonwhite citizens and immigrants. The perceived need to protect and propagate these values serves as a call to action.

This ideology has motivated several recent acts of mass violence, from synagogue shootings to racially targeted attacks.

Our data revealed that a belief in white nationalism predicted support for political violence as well. In response to both nonpartisan government actions and those that would benefit left-wing causes, the stronger a person’s white nationalist sentiment, the more strongly that individual believed that violence would be justified.

Out of all the variables in our statistical models, including political views and demographic characteristics, white nationalism was the strongest predictor of support for violence in these circumstances.

It did not, however, significantly influence support for violence when the government actions would benefit right-wing causes.

Growing threat to US democracy

Most people who voice support for political violence will never commit violent acts themselves.

Yet such attitudes foster an atmosphere of tolerance, signaling that violence is acceptable and enabling its continuation. Our analyses show that these supportive attitudes are prevalent among white nationalists.

Active white nationalist groups operate in all but two U.S. states, Alaska and Vermont. Decentralized groups, such as Active Clubs, where white nationalists train and network, are also on the rise.

Many more individuals hold white nationalist sentiments without belonging to organized groups. Indeed, in our national sample, one quarter of respondents agreed with the statement “although people won’t admit it, White Americans and their culture are what made America great in the first place.”

The fact that white nationalism is gaining prominence in the U.S., combined with the association between holding white nationalist views and supporting political violence found in our study, indicates that white nationalism poses a serious threat to U.S. political stability.

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. White nationalism fuels tolerance for political violence nationwide – https://theconversation.com/white-nationalism-fuels-tolerance-for-political-violence-nationwide-268480

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Caroline Light, Senior Lecturer on Studies of Women, Gender, and Sexuality, Harvard University

Twenty years ago, Florida Gov. Jeb Bush signed the first “stand your ground” law, calling it a “good, common-sense, anti-crime issue.”

The law’s creators promised it would protect law-abiding citizens from prosecution if they used force in self-defense. Then-Florida state Rep. Dennis Baxley, who cosponsored the bill, claimed – in the wake of George Zimmerman’s controversial acquittal for the killing of Trayvon Martin – that “we’re really safer if we empower people to stop violent acts.”

I’m a historian who has studied the roots of stand your ground laws. I published a book on the subject in 2017. My ongoing investigation of the laws suggests that, 20 years on, they have not made communities any safer, nor have they helped prevent crime. In fact, there is reliable evidence they have done just the opposite.

In the past 20 years, stand your ground has spread to 38 states.

Then, in September 2025, an appellate court struck down Florida’s long-standing ban on the open carry of firearms.

Florida’s attorney general, James Uthmeier, quickly announced that open carry is now “the law of the state,” directing law enforcement not to arrest people who display handguns in public.

Under the state’s permitless carry law, enacted in 2023, adults without a criminal record also don’t need a permit or any training to carry firearms publicly.

In my view, this combination of stand your ground, open carry and permitless carry is likely to make the Sunshine State far less safe.

Let’s look at the evidence.

What ‘stand your ground’ means

Under traditional self-defense law, a person had a duty to retreat – to try to avoid a violent confrontation if they could safely do so – before resorting to deadly force.

The main exception to the duty to retreat was known as the castle doctrine, whereby people could defend themselves, with force if necessary, if they were attacked in their own homes.

Stand your ground laws effectively expand the boundaries of the castle doctrine to the wider world, removing the duty to retreat and allowing people to use lethal force anywhere they have a legal right to be, as long as they believe it’s necessary to prevent death or serious harm.

On paper, the expansion of the right to self-defense may sound reasonable. But in practice, stand your ground laws have blurred the line between self-defense and aggression by expanding legal immunity for some who claim self-defense and shifting the burden of proof to prosecutors.

While supporters of these laws claim they mitigate crime and make people safer, evidence shows the opposite. The nonpartisan RAND Corp. discovered that states adopting stand your ground laws experienced significant increases in homicide, typically between 8% and 11% higher than before the laws took effect.

A study of violent crime in Florida revealed a 31.6% increase in firearm homicides following the 2005 passage of the stand your ground law. There is no credible evidence that these laws deter crime.

On the contrary, evidence shows that stand your ground laws lower the legal, moral and psychological costs of pulling the trigger.

Stand your ground and race

While the language of stand your ground laws is race-neutral, their enforcement is not. Data from the Urban Institute and the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights show that in states with stand your ground laws, homicides are far more likely to be deemed “justified” when the shooter is white and the victim is Black.

I’ve found that these laws have redefined not only when force is justified but who is justified in using force.

In my assessment, these laws don’t create racial bias. Rather, they magnify the biases already present in our criminal legal system. They give broader discretion to a legal system in which law enforcement officers, judges, prosecutors and juries often hold unacknowledged biases that associate Black men with criminality, while perceiving white people who say they were defending themselves as credible.

That dynamic is visible in a growing multitude of cases, such as the shootings of unarmed teenagers Trayvon Martin, Jordan Davis, Renisha McBride and Ralph Yarl.

Each instance illustrates how stand your ground transforms ordinary mistakes or misunderstandings into lethal outcomes, and how armed citizens’ claims of “reasonable fear” often reflect racial stereotypes more than objective threats.

A dangerous mix

Florida’s legalization of open carry intersects with the state’s permitless carry and stand your ground laws in alarming ways. Open carry increases the visibility – and perceived legitimacy – of guns in everyday life.

Combined with the removal of licensing procedures and training requirements, laws that broaden the right to use deadly force create a permissive environment for opportunistic violence.

When everyone is visibly armed, every encounter can look like a potential threat. And when the law tells you that you don’t have to back down, that perception can turn lethal in seconds.

Florida has become a model for what gun rights advocates call “freedom” but what public health experts see as a recipe for more shootings and more death.

National implications: ‘Reciprocity’ and expansion

Two decades later, stand your ground laws have spread, in various forms, to 38 states. While 30 states have legislatively enacted stand your ground statutes like Florida’s, eight others implement stand your ground through case law and jury instructions that effectively remove the duty to retreat.

On top of this, 29 states have enacted laws allowing permitless carry, and 47 technically allow open carry, though restrictions vary across the states.

President Donald Trump has made clear he wants to take this deregulatory approach nationwide. While on the campaign trail, he promised to sign a “concealed-carry reciprocity” law, which would require all states to allow people from states with permissive laws to exercise those rights in all 50. “Your Second Amendment does not end at the state line,” he announced in a 2023 video.

If that vision becomes reality, it would mean the most permissive state laws will set the standard for the entire country. National reciprocity would allow Floridians, and other gun owners from permitless carry states, to carry their firearms – and potentially claim stand your ground immunity – in any other state, including those with stricter rules and lower rates of firearm death and injury.

This prospect raises deep questions about states’ rights, safety and justice. Research shows that stand your ground laws increase homicide and exacerbate racial disparities. National reciprocity would export those effects nationwide.

In my view, the convergence of stand your ground, open carry and national reciprocity marks the culmination of a 20-year experiment in armed citizenship. The results are clear: more people armed, more shootings and more deaths “justified.”

The question now is whether the rest of the nation will follow Florida’s lead.

Read more stories from The Conversation about Florida.

Caroline Light is affiliated with GVPedia and collaborates with Giffords.

– ref. Florida’s new open carry law combines with ‘stand your ground’ to create new freedoms – and new dangers – https://theconversation.com/floridas-new-open-carry-law-combines-with-stand-your-ground-to-create-new-freedoms-and-new-dangers-267496