La plupart des navigateurs proposent une « navigation privée », souvent perçue comme un moyen de surfer anonymement. Pourtant, ce mode ne garantit pas l’anonymat en ligne, et de nombreux internautes surestiment sa portée.
La navigation privée permet d’éviter que quelqu’un d’autre ayant accès à votre ordinateur voie vos activités en ligne a posteriori. C’est utile, par exemple, sur un ordinateur public ou partagé, pour ne pas laisser d’identifiants enregistrés ni d’historique compromettant.
Cependant, il est important de comprendre que cette confidentialité est avant tout locale (sur votre appareil). Le mode privé n’implique pas de naviguer de façon anonyme sur le réseau Internet lui-même. Il ne s’agit pas d’un « bouclier d’invisibilité » vis-à-vis des sites web visités, de votre fournisseur d’accès à Internet (FAI), ou de votre employeur.
Des études confirment les limites techniques du mode privé. Des traces subsistent malgré la fermeture de la session, en contradiction avec ce qu’affirme la documentation du navigateur. Une analyse sur Android a révélé que la mémoire vive conserve des données sensibles : mots-clés, identifiants, cookies, récupérables même après redémarrage.
Le mode privé ne bloque pas les cookies publicitaires, il les supprime simplement en fin de session. Lorsqu’on revient sur un site dans une nouvelle session privée, celui-ci ne « se souvient » pas des choix précédents : il faut donc souvent redéfinir ses préférences (accepter ou refuser les cookies). Les bannières de consentement aux cookies, bien connues des internautes européens depuis l’entrée en vigueur du Règlement général sur la protection des données (RGPD) et de la directive ePrivacy, réapparaissent donc systématiquement. La fatigue du consentement pousse de nombreux internautes à tout accepter sans lire.
Quelles alternatives pour se protéger réellement ?
Le mode privé ne suffit pas à garantir l’anonymat en ligne. Pour mieux protéger sa vie privée, il faut combiner plusieurs outils.
Un VPN (virtual private network ou réseau privé virtuel, en français) crée un tunnel sécurisé entre votre appareil et Internet, permettant de naviguer de façon plus confidentielle en chiffrant vos données et en masquant votre adresse IP. En 2024, 19 % des utilisateurs de VPN français souhaitent avant tout cacher leur activité, et 15 % protéger leurs communications.
Un navigateur comme Tor va plus loin : il rebondit vos requêtes via plusieurs relais pour masquer totalement votre identité. C’est l’outil préféré des journalistes ou militants, mais sa lenteur peut décourager un usage quotidien. Des alternatives comme Brave ou Firefox Focus proposent des modes renforcés contre les traqueurs, tandis que des extensions comme uBlock Origin ou Privacy Badger bloquent efficacement pubs et trackers. Ces extensions sont compatibles avec les principaux navigateurs comme Chrome, Firefox, Edge, Opera et Brave.
Il est aussi essentiel d’adopter une hygiène numérique : gérer les cookies, limiter les autorisations, préférer des moteurs comme DuckDuckGo, qui ne stockent pas vos recherches, ne vous profile pas et bloque automatiquement de nombreux traqueurs, et éviter de centraliser ses données sur un seul compte. En ligne, la vraie confidentialité repose sur une approche globale, proactive et éclairée.
Sabrine Mallek ne travaille pas, ne conseille pas, ne possède pas de parts, ne reçoit pas de fonds d’une organisation qui pourrait tirer profit de cet article, et n’a déclaré aucune autre affiliation que son organisme de recherche.
Lorsque l’ancien champion du monde d’échecs Vladimir Kramnik a laissé entendre qu’Hikaru Nakamura, l’un des meilleurs joueurs du monde actuellement, trichait sur la plateforme en ligne Chess.com, un statisticien a été appelé pour enquêter.
C’est pourtant ce qui s’est passé l’été dernier. Erik Allebest, PDG du plus grand site d’échecs en ligne au monde, Chess.com, m’a demandé d’enquêter sur les allégations de l’ancien champion du monde d’échecs Vladimir Kramnik concernant les longues séries de victoires d’un des meilleurs joueurs du monde, l’Américain Hikaru Nakura.
Kramnik a déclaré que ces séries avaient une très faible probabilité de se produire et qu’elles étaient donc très suspectes. Il n’a pas formellement accusé Hikaru de tricherie, mais le sous-entendu était clair. Sur Internet, les esprits se sont vite échauffés : les partisans de Kramnik postant des commentaires virulents (souvent en russe) sur cette présumée tricherie, tandis que de nombreux joueurs de Chess.com et partisans d’Hikaru rejetaient les accusations.
Qui a raison ? Qui a tort ? Est-il possible de trancher ?
Erik Allebest m’a demandé de réaliser une analyse statistique indépendante et impartiale pour déterminer le degré d’improbabilité de ces séries de victoires.
Le calcul de probabilités
Pour résoudre ce problème, j’ai d’abord dû calculer la probabilité que chaque joueur gagne ou fasse match nul dans chaque partie. Les joueurs peuvent avoir des niveaux de jeu très différents. Les meilleurs ont évidemment plus de chances de vaincre des adversaires moins expérimentés. Mais à quel point ?
Chess.com attribue un classement à chaque joueur qui varie après chaque partie, et ces notes m’ont été communiquées. Mon analyse a suggéré qu’un modèle mathématique pouvait fournir une estimation précise des probabilités de victoire, de défaite ou de nulle pour chaque partie.
En outre, les écarts par rapport à cette probabilité dans les résultats de parties successives étaient approximativement indépendants, de sorte que l’influence d’une partie sur la suivante pouvait être ignorée en toute sécurité. J’ai ainsi obtenu une probabilité claire que chaque joueur gagne (ou perde) chaque partie.
Je pouvais alors analyser ces séries de victoires qui avaient provoqué tant de débats enflammés. Il s’est avéré qu’Hikaru Nakamura, contrairement à la plupart des autres joueurs de haut niveau, avait joué de nombreuses parties contre des joueurs beaucoup plus faibles. Cela lui donnait donc une très grande probabilité de gagner chaque partie. Mais malgré cela, est-il normal d’observer de si longues séries de victoires, parfois plus de 100 parties d’affilée ?
Tester le caractère aléatoire
Pour le vérifier, j’ai effectué ce que l’on appelle des simulations de Monte Carlo, qui répètent une expérience en intégrant des variations aléatoires.
J’ai codé des programmes informatiques pour attribuer au hasard des victoires, des défaites et des nuls à chaque partie d’Hikaru Nakamura, selon les probabilités de mon modèle. J’ai demandé à l’ordinateur de mesurer à chaque fois les séries de victoires les plus surprenantes (les moins probables). Cela m’a permis de mesurer comment les séries réelles d’Hikaru pouvaient se comparer aux prédictions.
J’ai constaté que dans de nombreuses simulations, les résultats simulés comprenaient des séries tout aussi « improbables » que les séries réelles.
Cela démontre que les résultats d’Hikaru aux échecs étaient à peu près conformes à ce que l’on pouvait attendre. Il avait une telle probabilité de gagner chaque partie, et avait joué tellement de parties sur Chess.com, que des séries de victoires aussi longues étaient susceptibles d’émerger selon les règles des probabilités.
Les réponses à mes découvertes
J’ai rédigé un bref rapport à propos de mes recherches et l’ai envoyé à Chess.com.
Le site a publié un article, qui a suscité de nombreux commentaires, pour la plupart favorables.
Nakamura a ensuite publié son propre commentaire en vidéo, soutenant également mon analyse. Pendant ce temps, Kramnik a publié une vidéo de 29 minutes critiquant mes recherches.
Ce dernier ayant soulevé quelques points importants, j’ai rédigé un addendum à mon rapport pour répondre à ses préoccupations et montrer qu’elles n’avaient pas d’incidence sur la conclusion. J’ai également converti mon rapport en un article scientifique que j’ai soumis à une revue de recherche.
Puis je me suis ensuite consacré à mes tâches d’enseignant et j’ai laissé de côté les controverses sur les échecs jusqu’à ce que je reçoive une réponse de plus de six pages en décembre dernier. Il s’agissait de trois rapports d’arbitres et de commentaires d’éditeurs de la revue dans laquelle j’avais soumis mon article scientifique.
J’ai également découvert que Kramnik avait posté une deuxième vidéo de 59 minutes critiquant mon addendum et soulevant d’autres points.
J’ai tenu compte des points supplémentaires soulevés par Kramnik et par les arbitres tout en révisant mon article en vue de sa publication. Il a finalement été publié dans Harvard Data Science Review.
J’étais heureux de voir mes résultats publiés dans une prestigieuse revue de statistiques, ce qui leur conférait un sceau d’approbation officiel. Et peut-être, enfin, de régler cette controverse sur les échecs au plus haut niveau.
Jeffrey S. Rosenthal reçoit des fonds de recherche du CRSNG du Canada, mais n’a reçu aucune compensation de Chess.com ou de qui que ce soit d’autre pour ce travail.
Spurred on by hashtags and usernames indicating these feats involve steroids, soon Mark is online, ordering his first “steroid cycle”. No script, no warnings, just vials in the mail and the promise of “gains”.
A few weeks later, he’s posting progress shots and getting tagged as #MegaMark. He’s pleased. But what if I told you Mark was unknowingly injecting toxic chemicals?
In our new research we tested products sold in Australia’s underground steroid market and found many were mislabelled or missing the expected steroid entirely.
Even more concerning, several contained heavy metals such as lead, arsenic and cadmium. These substances are known to cause cancer, heart disease and organ failure.
What are anabolic steroids, and who is using them?
Anabolic steroids are synthetic drugs designed to mimic the effects of testosterone. Medical professionals sometimes prescribe them for specific health conditions (for example, hypogonadism, where the body isn’t making enough sex hormones). But they are more commonly taken by people looking to increase muscle size, improve athletic performance, or elevate feelings of wellbeing.
In Australia, it’s illegal to possess steroids without a prescription. This offence can attract large fines and prison terms (up to 25 years in Queensland).
Despite this, they’re widely available online and from your local “gym bro”. So it’s not surprising we’re seeing escalating use, particularly among young men and women.
People usually take steroids as pills and capsules or injectable oil- or water-based products. But while many people assume these products are safe if used correctly, they’re made outside regulated settings, with no official quality checks.
For this new study, we analysed 28 steroid products acquired from people all over Australia which they’d purchased either online or from peers in the gym. These included 16 injectable oils, ten varieties of oral tablets, and two “raw” powders.
An independent forensic lab tested the samples for active ingredients, contaminants and heavy metals. We then compared the results against what people thought they were taking.
More than half of the samples were mislabelled or contained the wrong drug. For example, one product labelled as testosterone enanthate (200mg/mL) contained 159mg/mL of trenbolone (a potent type of steroid) and no detectable testosterone. Oxandrolone (also known as “Anavar”, another type of steroid) tablets were sold claiming a strength of 10mg but actually contained 6.8mg, showing a disparity in purity.
Just four products matched their expected compound and purity within a 5% margin.
But the biggest concern was that all steroids we analysed were contaminated with some level of heavy metals, including lead, arsenic and cadmium.
While all of the concentrations we detected were within daily exposure limits regarded as safe by health authorities, more frequent and heavier use of these drugs would quickly see people who use steroids exceed safe thresholds. And we know this happens.
If consumed above safe limits, research suggests lead can damage the brain and heart. Arsenic is a proven carcinogen, having been linked to the development of skin, liver and lung cancers.
People who use steroids often dose for weeks or months, and sometimes stack multiple drugs, so these metals would build up. This means long‑term steroid use could be quietly fuelling cognitive decline, organ failure, and even cancer.
What needs to happen next?
Heavy metals such as lead, arsenic and cadmium often contaminate anabolic steroid products because raw powders sourced from some manufacturers, particularly those in China, may be produced with poor quality control and impure starting materials. These metals can enter the supply chain during synthesis, handling, or from contaminated equipment and solvents, leading to their presence in the final products.
Steroid use isn’t going away, so we need to address the potential health harms from these contaminants.
While pill testing is now common at festivals for drugs such as ecstasy, testing anabolic steroids requires more complex chemical analysis that cannot be conducted on-site. Current steroid testing relies on advanced laboratory techniques, which limits availability mostly to specialised research programs such as those in Australia and Switzerland.
We need to invest properly in a national steroid surveillance and testing network, which will give us data‑driven insights to inform targeted interventions.
We also need to see peer‑led support through trusted programs to educate people who use steroids around the risks. The programs should be based in real evidence, and developed by people with lived experience of steroid use, in partnership with researchers and clinicians.
Timothy Piatkowski receives funding from Queensland Mental Health Commission. He is affiliated with Queensland Injectors Voice for Advocacy and Action as the Vice President. He is affiliated with The Loop Australia as the research lead (Queensland).
Australia has joined 28 international partners in calling for an immediate end to the war in Gaza and a lifting of all restrictions on food and medical supplies.
Foreign Minister Penny Wong, along with counterparts from countries including the United Kingdom, France and Canada, has signed a joint statement demanding Israel complies with its obligations under international humanitarian law.
The statement condemns Israel for what it calls “the drip feeding of aid and the inhumane killing of civilians” seeking “their most basic need” of water and food, saying:
The suffering of civilians in Gaza has reached new depths. The Israeli government’s aid delivery model is dangerous, fuels instability and deprives Gazans of human dignity […] It is horrifying that over 800 Palestinians have been killed while seeking aid.
Weapon of war
Gazans, including malnourished mothers denied baby formula, face impossible choices as Israel intensifies its use of starvation as a weapon of war.
In Gaza, survival requires negotiating what the United Nations calls aid “death traps”.
According to the UN, 875 Gazans have been killed – many of them shot – while seeking food since the US-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation began operating in late May. Another 4,000 have been injured.
Gaza has been described as the “hungriest place on Earth”, with aid trucks being held at the border and the United States destroying around 500 tonnes of emergency food because it was just out of date.
More than two million people are at critical risk of famine. The World Food Programme estimates 90,000 women and children require urgent treatment for malnutrition.
Nineteen Palestinians have starved to death in recent days, according to local health authorities.
We can’t say we didn’t know
After the breakdown of the January ceasefire, Israel implemented a humanitarian blockade on the Gaza Strip. Following mounting international pressure, limited aid was permitted and the controversial Gaza Humanitarian Foundation began operations.
As anticipated, only a fraction of the aid has been distributed.
About 1,600 trucks entered Gaza between May 19 and July 14, well below the 630 trucks needed every day to feed the population.
Israeli ministers have publicly called for food and fuel reserves to be bombed to starve the Palestinian people – a clear war crime – to pressure Hamas to release Israeli hostages.
Famine expert Alex De Waal says Israel’s starvation strategy constitutes a dangerous weakening of international law. It also disrupts norms aimed at preventing hunger being used as a weapon of war:
operations like the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation are a big crack in these principles [that is] not going to save Gaza from mass starvation.
Palestinian organisations were the first to raise the alarm over Israel’s plans to impose controls over aid distribution.
UN Relief Chief Tom Fletcher briefed the UN Security Council in May, warning of the world’s collective failure to call out the scale of violations of international law as they were being committed:
Israel is deliberately and unashamedly imposing inhumane conditions on civilians in the occupied Palestinian territory.
Tom Fletcher briefing the United Nations on the ‘atrocity’ being committed in Gaza.
Since then, clear and unequivocal warnings of the compounding risks of genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing have intensified from the UN, member states and international law experts.
Weaponising aid
The Gaza Humanitarian Foundation claims it has handed out millions of meals since it began operating in the strip in May. But the UN has called the distribution model “inherently unsafe”.
Near-daily shootings have occurred since the militarised aid hubs began operating. Malnourished Palestinians risking death to feed their families are trekking long distances to reach the small number of distribution sites.
While the foundation denies people are being shot, the UN has called the aid delivery mechanism a “deliberate attempt to weaponise aid” that fails to comply with humanitarian principles and risks further war crimes.
Jewish Physicians for Human Rights has rejected the aid’s “humanitarian” characterisation, stating it “is what systematic harm to human beings looks like”.
Human rights and legal organisations are calling for all involved to be held accountable for complicity in war crimes that “exposes all those who enable or profit from it to real risk of prosecution”.
Mounting world action
Today’s joint statement follows growing anger and frustration in Western countries over the lack of political pressure on Israel to end the suffering in Gaza.
Polling in May showed more than 80% of Australians opposed Israel’s denial of aid as unjustifiable and wanted to see Australia doing more to support civilians in Gaza.
Last week’s meeting of the Hague Group of nations shows more collective concrete action is being taken to exert pressure and uphold international law.
Th 12 member states agreed to a range of diplomatic, legal and economic measures, including a ban on ships transporting arms to Israel.
The time for humanity is now
States will continue to face increased international and domestic pressure to take stronger action to influence Israel’s conduct as more Gazans are killed, injured and stripped of their dignity in an engineered famine.
This moment in Gaza is unprecedented in terms of our knowledge of the scale and gravity of violations being perpetrated and what failing to act means for Palestinians and our shared humanity.
Now is the time to exert diplomatic, legal and economic pressure on Israel to change course.
History tells us we need to act now – international law and our collective moral conscience requires it.
Amra Lee does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Radiodensity heatmap of emerald tree monitors.Roy Ebel
Monitor lizards, also known in Australia as goannas, are some of the most iconic reptiles on the continent. Their lineage not only survived the mass extinction that ended the reign of non-avian dinosaurs, but also gave rise to the largest living lizards on Earth.
Today, these formidable creatures pace through forests and scrublands, flicking their tongues as they go.
A new study published in the Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society looks beneath their skin. For the first time, it reveals hidden bone structures that may hold the key to the evolutionary success of goannas in Australia.
An essential organ
The skin is an organ essential for survival. In some animals, it includes a layer of bone plates embedded among the skin tissue. Think of the armour-like plates in crocodiles or armadillos: these are osteoderms.
Their size ranges from microscopic to massive, with the back plates of the stegosaurus as the most impressive example.
We have only just started to understand these enigmatic structures. Osteoderms can be found in animal lineages that diverged up to 380 million years ago. This means these bone plates would have evolved independently, just like active flight did in birds, pterosaurs and bats.
But what is their purpose? While the advantage of flight is undisputed, the case is not as clear for osteoderms.
The most obvious potential would be for defence – protecting the animal from injuries. However, osteoderms may serve a far broader purpose.
In crocodiles, for example, they help with heat regulation, play a part in movement, and even supply calcium during egg-laying. It is the interplay of these poorly understood functions that has long made it difficult to pinpoint how and why osteoderms evolved.
Sand monitors, also known as sand goannas, are widespread through most of Australia. Ken Griffiths/Shutterstock
A cutting-edge technique
To help resolve this enigma, we had to go back to the beginning.
Surprisingly, to date science has not even agreed on which species have osteoderms. Therefore, we assembled an international team of specialists to carry out the first large-scale study of osteoderms in lizards and snakes.
We studied specimens from scientific collections at institutions such as the Florida Museum of Natural History, the Natural History Museum in Berlin, and Museums Victoria.
However, we soon learnt that this came with challenges. Firstly, the presence of osteoderms can vary dramatically between individuals of the same species. Secondly, there is no guarantee that osteoderms are sufficiently preserved in all specimens.
Most importantly, they are buried deep within skin tissue and invisible to the naked eye. Traditionally, finding them meant destroying the specimen.
Instead, we turned to micro-computed tomography (micro-CT), an imaging technique similar to a medical CT scan, but with much higher resolution. This allowed us to study even the tiniest anatomical structures while keeping our specimens intact.
Micro-CT-based, computer-generated 3D model of Rosenberg’s goanna (Varanus rosenbergi), with the left half showing osteoderms and endoskeleton. Roy Ebel
Using computer-generated 3D models, we then digitally explored the bodies of lizards and snakes from all parts of the world. Incorporating data from prior literature, we processed almost 2,000 such samples in our search for osteoderms.
To illustrate our results, we devised a technique called radiodensity heatmapping, which visually highlights the locations of bone structures in the body.
For the first time, we now have a comprehensive catalogue showing where to find osteoderms in a large and diverse group; this will inform future studies.
Radiodensity heatmapping shows newly discovered osteoderms (yellow to red) in the limbs and tail of the Mexican knob scaled lizard (Xenosaurus platyceps). Roy Ebel
Not just anatomical curiosity
What we found was unexpected. It was thought only a small number of lizard families had osteoderms. However, we encountered them nearly twice as often as anticipated.
In fact, our results show nearly half of all lizards have osteoderms in one form or another.
Our most astonishing finding concerned goannas. Scientists have been studying monitor lizards for more than 200 years. They were long thought to lack osteoderms, except in rare cases such as the Komodo dragon.
So we were all the more surprised when we discovered previously undocumented osteoderms in 29 Australo-Papuan species, increasing their overall known prevalence five times.
Examples of newly discovered osteoderms (magenta) in Australo-Papuan monitor lizards. Roy Ebel
This isn’t just an anatomical curiosity. Now that we know Australian goannas have osteoderms, it opens up an exciting new avenue for further studies. This is because goannas have an interesting biogeographic history: when they first arrived in Australia about 20 million years ago, they had to adapt to a new, harsh environment.
If osteoderms in goannas showed up around this time – possibly owing to new challenges from their environment – we’d gain crucial insights into the function and evolution of these enigmatic bone structures.
Not only may we just have found the key to an untold chapter in the goanna story, our findings may also improve our understanding of the forces of evolution that shaped Australia’s unique reptiles as we know them today.
Roy Ebel receives funding from the Australian Government’s Research Training Program.
If Rupert Murdoch becomes a white knight standing up to a rampantly bullying US president, the world has moved into the upside-down.
This is, after all, the media mogul whose US television network, Fox News, actively supported Donald Trump’s Big Lie about the 2020 presidential election result and paid out a US$787 million (about A$1.2 billion) lawsuit for doing so.
It is also the network that supplied several members of Trump’s inner circle, including former Fox host, now controversial Defense Secretary, Pete Hegseth.
But that is where we are after Trump filed a writ on July 18 after Murdoch’s financial newspaper, The Wall Street Journal, published an article about a hand-drawn card Trump is alleged to have sent to sex offender Jeffrey Epstein in 2003. The newspaper reported:
A pair of small arcs denotes the woman’s breasts, and the future president’s signature is a squiggly “Donald” below her waist, mimicking pubic hair.
The Journal said it has seen the letter but did not republish it. The letter allegedly concluded:
Happy Birthday – and may every day be another wonderful secret.
The card was apparently Trump’s contribution to a birthday album compiled for Epstein by the latter’s partner Ghislaine Maxwell, who is serving a 20-year sentence after being found guilty of sex trafficking in 2021.
Trump was furious. He told his Truth Social audience he had warned Murdoch the letter was fake. He wrote, “Mr Murdoch stated that he would take care of it but obviously did not have the power to do so,” referring to Murdoch handing leadership of News Corporation to his eldest son Lachlan in 2023.
Trump is being pincered. On one side, The Wall Street Journal is a respected newspaper that speaks to literate, wealthy Americans who remain deeply sceptical about Trump’s radical initiative on tariffs, which it described in an editorial as “the dumbest trade war in history”.
On the other side is the conspiracy theory-thirsty MAGA base who have been told for years that there was a massive conspiracy around Epstein’s apparent suicide in 2019 that included the so-called deep state, Democrat elites and, no doubt, the Clintons.
Trump, who loves pro wrestling as well as adopting its garish theatrics, might characterise his lawsuit against Murdoch as a smackdown to rival Hulk Hogan vs Andre the Giant in the 1980s.
To adopt wrestling argot, though, it is a rare battle between two heels.
A friendship of powerful convenience
Murdoch and Trump’s relationship is longstanding but convoluted. The key to understanding it is that both men are ruthlessly transactional.
Exposure in Murdoch’s New York Post in the 1980s and ‘90s was crucial to building Trump’s reputation.
Not that Murdoch particularly likes Trump. Yes, Murdoch attended his second inauguration, albeit in a back row behind the newly favoured big tech media moguls. He was also seen sitting in the Oval Office a few days later looking quite at home.
But this was pure power-display politics, not the behaviour of a friend.
Remember Murdoch’s derision on hearing Trump was considering standing for office before the 2016 election, and his promotion of Ron De Santis in the primaries before Trump’s second term. Murdoch’s political hero has always been Ronald Reagan. Trump has laid waste to the Republican Party of Reagan.
Murdoch knows what the rest of sane America knows: Trump is downright weird, if not dangerous. This, of course, only makes Murdoch’s complicity in Trump’s rise to power, and Fox News’ continued boosterism of Trump, all the more appalling.
But, in keeping with Murdoch’s relationship to power throughout his career, what he helps make, he also helps destroy. Perhaps now it’s Trump’s turn to be unmade. As a former Murdoch lieutenant told The Financial Times over the weekend:
he’s testing out: Is Trump losing his base? And where do I need to be to stay in the heart of the base?
And here is Murdoch’s great advantage, and his looming threat.
A double-edged sword
The advantage comes with the scope of Murdoch’s media empire, which operates like a federation of different mastheads, each with their own market and aspirations. While Fox News panders to the MAGA base, and The New York Post juices its New York audience, The Wall Street Journal speaks, and listens, to business. Each audience has different needs, meaning they’re often presented with the same news in very different ways, or sometimes different news entirely.
Like a federation, though, News Corp uses its various operations to drive the type of change that affects all its markets.
It might work like this. The Wall Street Journal breaks a story that’s so shocking it begins to chip away at MAGA’s unquestioning loyalty of Trump. This process is, of course, willingly aided by the rest of the media. The resulting groundswell eventually allows Fox News and the Post to tentatively follow their audiences into questioning, and then perhaps criticising, Trump.
Fox News audiences could slowly begin to question Trump, or abandon the network entirely. NurPhoto/Getty
The threat is that before that groundswell builds, Murdoch is seriously vulnerable to criticism from a still dominant Trump, who can turn conspiracy-prone audiences away from Fox News with just a social media post. Trump has already been busy doing just that, saying he is looking forward to getting Murdoch onto the witness stand for his lawsuit.
If the Fox audience decides it’s the proprietor who’s behind this denigration of Trump, they may decide to boycott their own favoured media channel, even though Fox’s programming hasn’t yet started questioning Trump.
The Murdochs’ fear of audience backlash was a major factor in Fox’s promulgation of the Big Lie after Trump’s defeat in 2020. The fear their audience might defect to Newsmax or some other right-wing media outfit is just as real today.
History littered with fakery
We also need to consider that Trump might be right. What if the letter is a fake?
Murdoch has form when it comes to high-profile exposés that turn out to be fiction. Who can forget the Hitler Diaries in 1983, which we now know Murdoch knew were fake before he published.
Think also of the Pauline Hanson photos, allegedly of her posing in lingerie, all of which were quickly proved to be fake after they were published by Murdoch’s Australian tabloids in 2009.
There was also The Sun’s despicable and wilfully wrong campaign against Elton John in 1987 and the same paper’s continueddenigration of the people of Liverpool following the Hillsborough stadium disaster in 1989.
But while Murdoch’s News Corp has a history of confection and fakery, the Wall Street Journal has a reputation for straight reportage, albeit through a conservative lens. Since Murdoch bought it in 2007, it has been engaged in its own internal battle for editorial standards.
Media rolling over
What Trump won’t get from Murdoch is the same acquiescence he’s enjoyed from America’s ABC and CBS networks, which have both handed over tens of millions of dollars in defamation settlements following dubious claims by Trump about the nature of their coverage.
In December 2024, ABC’s owner Disney settled and agreed to pay US$15 million (A$23 million) to Trump’s presidential library. The president sued after a presenter said Trump was found guilty of raping E. Jean Carroll.
Trump had actually been found guilty by a jury in a civil trial of sexually abusing and defaming Carroll and was ordered to pay her US$5 million (A$7.6 million).
CBS’ parent company, Paramount, did similarly after being sued by the president, agreeing in early July to settle and pay US$16 million (A$24.5 million) to Trump’s library. This was despite earlier saying the case was “completely without merit”.
Beware the legal microscope
From Trump’s viewpoint, two prominent media companies have been cowed. But his campaign against critical media doesn’t stop there.
Last week, congress passed a bill cancelling federal funding for the country’s two public-service media outlets, the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) and National Public Radio (NPR).
Also last week, CBS announced the cancellation of Stephen Colbert’s stridently critical comedy show, although CBS claims this is just a cost-cutting exercise and not about appeasing a bully in the White House.
Presuming the reported birthday letter is real, Murdoch will not bend so easily. And that’s when it will be important to pay attention, because at some point Trump’s lawyers will advise him about the dangers of depositions and discovery: the legal processes that force parties to a dispute to reveal what they have and what they know.
If the Epstein files do implicate Trump, the legal fight won’t last long and the media campaign against him will only intensify.
Right now we have the spectre of Murdoch joining that other disaffected mogul, Elon Musk, in a moral crusade against Trump, the man they both helped make. The implications are head-spinning.
As global bullies, the three of them probably deserve each other. But we, the public, surely deserve better than any of them.
The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Source: The Conversation – USA – By Paul M. Collins Jr., Professor of Legal Studies and Political Science, UMass Amherst
Emil Bove, Donald Trump’s nominee to serve as a federal appeals judge for the 3rd Circuit, is sworn in during a confirmation hearing in Washington, D.C., on June 25, 2025. Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call, Inc, via Getty Images
On June 24, 2025, Erez Reuveni, a former Department of Justice attorney who worked with Bove, released an extensive, 27-page whistleblower report. Reuveni claimed that Bove, as the Trump administration’s acting deputy attorney general, said “that it might become necessary to tell a court ‘fuck you’” and ignore court orders related to the administration’s immigration policies. Bove’s acting role ended on March 6 when he resumed his current position of principal associate deputy attorney general.
When asked about this statement at his June 25 Senate confirmation hearing, Bove said, “I don’t recall.”
And on July 15, 80 former federal and state judges signed a letter opposing Bove’s nomination. The letter argued that “Mr. Bove’s egregious record of mistreating law enforcement officers, abusing power, and disregarding the law itself disqualifies him for this position.”
A day later, more than 900 former Department of Justice attorneys submitted their own letter opposing Bove’s confirmation. The attorneys argued that “Few actions could undermine the rule of law more than a senior executive branch official flouting another branch’s authority. But that is exactly what Mr. Bove allegedly did through his involvement in DOJ’s defiance of court orders.”
On July 17, Democrats walked out of the Senate Judiciary Committee vote, in protest of the refusal by Chairman Chuck Grassley, a Republican from Iowa, to allow further investigation and debate on the nomination. Republicans on the committee then unanimously voted to move the nomination forward for a full Senate vote.
As a scholar of the courts, I know that most federal court appointments are not as controversial as Bove’s nomination. But highly contentious nominations do arise from time to time.
Here’s how three controversial nominations turned out – and how Bove’s nomination is different in a crucial way.
Robert Bork testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee for his confirmation as associate justice of the Supreme Court in September 1987. Mark Reinstein/Corbis via Getty Images
Robert Bork
Bork is the only federal court nominee whose name became a verb.
“Borking” is “to attack or defeat (a nominee or candidate for public office) unfairly through an organized campaign of harsh public criticism or vilification,” according to Merriam-Webster.
In opposing the Bork nomination, Sen. Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts took the Senate floor and gave a fiery speech: “Robert Bork’s America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens’ doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of government, and the doors of the federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens for whom the judiciary is often the only protector of the individual rights that are the heart of our democracy.”
Ultimately, Bork’s nomination failed by a 58-42 vote in the Senate, with 52 Democrats and six Republicans rejecting the nomination.
Republican Sen. John Ashcroft, from White’s home state of Missouri, led the fight against the nomination. Ashcroft alleged that White’s confirmation would “push the law in a pro-criminal direction.” Ashcroft based this claim on White’s comparatively liberal record in death penalty cases as a judge on the Missouri Supreme Court.
However, there was limited evidence to support this assertion. This led someto believe that Ashcroft’s attack on the nomination was motivated by stereotypes that African Americans, like White, are soft on crime.
Even Clinton implied that race may be a factor in the attacks on White: “By voting down the first African-American judge to serve on the Missouri Supreme Court, the Republicans have deprived both the judiciary and the people of Missouri of an excellent, fair, and impartial Federal judge.”
White’s nomination was defeated in the Senate by a 54-45 party-line vote. In 2014, White was renominated to the same judgeship by President Barack Obama and confirmed by largely party-line 53-44 vote, garnering the support of a single Republican, Susan Collins of Maine.
Ronnie White, a former justice for the Missouri Supreme Court, testifies during an attorney general confirmation hearing in Washington in January 2001. Alex Wong/Newsmakers
Estrada, who had earned a unanimous “well-qualified” rating from the American Bar Association, faced deep opposition from Senate Democrats, who believed he was a conservative ideologue. They also worried that, if confirmed, he would later be appointed to the Supreme Court.
Miguel Estrada, President George Bush’s nominee to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, is sworn in during his hearing before Senate Judiciary on Sept. 26, 2002. Scott J. Ferrell/Congressional Quarterly/Getty Images
However, unlike Bork – who had an extensive paper trail as an academic and judge – Estrada’s written record was very thin.
Democrats sought to use his confirmation hearing to probe his beliefs. But they didn’t get very far, as Estrada dodged many of the senators’ questions, including ones about Supreme Court cases he disagreed with and judges he admired.
Democrats were particularly troubled by allegations that Estrada, when he was screening candidates for Justice Anthony Kennedy, disqualified applicants for Supreme Court clerkships based on their ideology.
According to one attorney: “Miguel told me his job was to prevent liberal clerks from being hired. He told me he was screening out liberals because a liberal clerk had influenced Justice Kennedy to side with the majority and write a pro-gay-rights decision in a case known as Romer v. Evans, which struck down a Colorado statute that discriminated against gays and lesbians.”
When asked about this at his confirmation hearing, Estrada initially denied it but later backpedaled. Estrada said, “There is a set of circumstances in which I would consider ideology if I think that the person has some extreme view that he would not be willing to set aside in service to Justice Kennedy.”
Unlike the Bork nomination, Democrats didn’t have the numbers to vote Estrada’s nomination down. Instead, they successfully filibustered the nomination, knowing that Republicans couldn’t muster the required 60 votes to end the filibuster. This marked the first time in Senate history that a court of appeals nomination was filibustered. Estrada would never serve as a judge.
Bove stands out
As the examples of Bork, Estrada and White make clear, contentious nominations to the federal courts often involve ideological concerns.
This is also true for Bove, who is opposed in part because of the perception that he is a conservativeideologue.
This makes Bove stand out among contentious federal court nominations.
Paul M. Collins Jr. does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Source: The Conversation – USA – By Stephanie A. (Sam) Martin, Frank and Bethine Church Endowed Chair of Public Affairs, Boise State University
Congress’ cuts to public broadcasting will diminish the range and volume of the free press and the independent reporting it provides.MicroStockHub-iStock/Getty Images Plus
Champions of the almost entirely party-line vote in the U.S. Senate to erase US$1.1 billion in already approved funds for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting called their action a refusal to subsidize liberal media.
“Public broadcasting has long been overtaken by partisan activists,” said U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, insisting there is no need for government to fund what he regards as biased media. “If you want to watch the left-wing propaganda, turn on MSNBC,” Cruz said.
Accusing the media of liberal bias has been a consistent conservative complaint since the civil rights era, when white Southerners insisted news outlets were slanting their stories against segregation. During his presidential campaign in 1964, U.S. Sen. Barry Goldwater of Arizona complained that the media was against him, an accusation that has been repeated by every Republican presidential candidate since.
But those charges of bias rarely survive empirical scrutiny.
That independence in the United States – enshrined in the press freedom clause of the First Amendment – gives journalists the ability to hold government accountable, expose abuses of power and thereby support democracy.
GOP Sen. Ted Cruz speaks to reporters as Senate Republicans vote on President Donald Trump’s request to cancel about $9 billion in foreign aid and public broadcasting spending on July 16, 2025. AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite
Trusting independence
Ad Fontes Media, a self-described “public benefit company” whose mission is to rate media for credibility and bias, have placed the reporting of “PBS NewsHour” under 10 points left of the ideological center. They label it as both “reliable” and based in “analysis/fact.” “Fox and Friends,” by contrast, the popular morning show on Fox News, is nearly 20 points to the right. The scale starts at zero and runs 42 points to the left to measure progressive bias and 42 points to the right to measure conservative bias. Ratings are provided by three-person panels comprising left-, right- and center-leaning reviewers.
A similar 2016 study published in Public Opinion Quarterly said that media are more similar than dissimilar and, excepting political scandals, “major
news organizations present topics in a largely nonpartisan manner,
casting neither Democrats nor Republicans in a particularly favorable
or unfavorable light.”
Surveys show public media’s audiences do not see it as biased. A national poll of likely voters released July 14, 2025, found that 53% of respondents trust public media to report news “fully, accurately and fairly,” while only 35% extend that trust to “the media in general.” A majority also opposed eliminating federal support.
Contrast these numbers with attitudes about public broadcasters such as MTVA in Hungary or the TVP in Poland, where the state controls most content. Protests in Budapest October 2024 drew thousands demanding an end to “propaganda.” Oxford’s Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism reports that TVP is the least trusted news outlet in the country.
While critics sometimes conflate American public broadcasting with state-run outlets, the structures are very different.
Safeguards for editorial freedom
In state-run media systems, a government agency hires editors, dictates coverage and provides full funding from the treasury. Public officials determine – or make up – what is newsworthy. Individual media operations survive only so long as the party in power is happy.
Public broadcasting in the U.S. works in almost exactly the opposite way: The Corporation for Public Broadcasting is a private nonprofit with a statutory “firewall” that forbids political interference.
Stations survive by combining this modest federal grant money with listener donations, underwriting and foundation support. That creates a diversified revenue mix that further safeguards their editorial freedom.
As a public-private partnership, individual communities mostly own the public broadcasting system and its affiliate stations. Congress allocates funds, while community nonprofits, university boards, state authorities or other local license holders actually own and run the stations. Individual monthly donors are often called “members” and sometimes have voting rights in station-governance matters. Membership contributions make up the largest share of revenue for most stations, providing another safeguard for editorial independence.
A host and guest in July 2024 sit inside a recording studio at KMXT, the public radio station on Kodiak Island in Alaska. Nathaniel Herz/Northern Journal
A 2021 report from the European Broadcasting Union links public broadcasting with higher voter turnout, better factual knowledge and lower susceptibility to extremist rhetoric.
Experts warn that even small cuts will exacerbate an already pernicious problem with political disinformation in the U.S., as citizens lose access to free information that fosters media literacy and encourages trust across demographics.
In many ways, public media remains the last broadly shared civic commons. It is both commercial-free and independently edited.
Another study, by the University of Pennsylvania’s Annenberg School in 2022, affirmed that “countries with independent and well-funded public broadcasting systems also consistently have stronger democracies.”
Such attention to nuance provides a critical counterweight to the fragmented, often hyperpartisan news bubbles that pervade cable news and social media. And this skillful, more balanced treatment helps to ameliorate political polarization and misinformation.
In all, public media’s unique structure and mission make democracy healthier in the U.S. and across the world. Public media prioritizes education and civic enlightenment. It gives citizens important tools for navigating complex issues to make informed decisions – whether those decisions are about whom to vote for or about public policy itself. Maintaining and strengthening public broadcasting preserves media diversity and advances important principles of self-government.
Congress’ cuts to public broadcasting will diminish the range and volume of the free press and the independent reporting it provides. Ronald Reagan once described a free press as vital for the United States to succeed in its “noble experiment in self-government.” From that perspective, more independent reporting – not less – will prove the best remedy for any worry about partisan spin.
Stephanie A. (Sam) Martin 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.
It is crucial to think about what you can do promote your safety while using dating apps, and before you click the download button.(Shutterstock)
Dating apps like Tinder, Bumble and Grindr have become a ubiquitous part of modern dating for young people looking to meet potential partners. However, many Gen Z users are increasingly forgoing dating apps, feeling burnt out by the whole process.
With anti-LGBTQ+ movements rising in Canada, the United States and around the world, it is important to understand the potential dangers of online dating and how LGBTQ+ people can promote their safety.
We recently conducted an online survey that looks into LGBTQ+ people’s experiences with dating apps in Canada as part of a research project at Concordia University’s Digital Intimacy, Gender & Sexuality (DIGS) Lab. We analyzed 624 participant responses that reveal the different harms LGBTQ+ users face and the strategies they use to mitigate those harms.
Dating today can feel like a mix of endless swipes, red flags and shifting expectations. From decoding mixed signals to balancing independence with intimacy, relationships in your 20s and 30s come with unique challenges. Love IRL is the latest series from Quarter Life that explores it all.
These research-backed articles break down the complexities of modern love to help you build meaningful connections, no matter your relationship status.
Harms against LGBTQ+ dating app users
LGBTQ+ dating users can experience a variety of harms, including unwanted sexual advances, harassment, coercion, discrimination and catfishing.
The most common types of harms that participants experienced were sexual harms (like receiving unsolicited sexual content, sexual harassment and sexual assault), emotional harms (like bullying and threatening behavior) and social harms (like discrimination and exclusion). Sexual harm was more common online and emotional harm was more common in person.
Many trans and non-binary participants were insulted with slurs and told their identity was not real by other dating app users. Some people they matched with would also verbally attack them or make death threats. Other trans and non-binary participants reported that people were often nice and friendly online, but then would harass them in person.
Racialized LGBTQ+ users said people often made racist comments or used slurs against them. Racial stereotyping and fetishizing was also common. For example, one participant said that she received “comments about my body based on my race and implications of what a Black woman could do with her lips.”
There were participants who reported being drugged or sexually assaulted when they met someone in person. Unfortunately, many people who use dating apps say that they have experienced sexual violence online or in person.
Younger LGBTQ+ users reported feeling pressured or coerced into doing sexual acts by older users. For example, one participant said they felt pushed into doing sexual acts they were not comfortable with.
If you or someone you know uses dating apps, there are steps you can take to make your experience safer.
The LGBTQ+ people in our study employed strategies like verifying someone’s identity through video calls or by checking out their social media profiles. When meeting someone in person for the first time, participants would choose to meet in a public space and sharetheir location with family or close friends.
Safety is not just the individual’s responsibility, however. Dating app companies need to keep their users safe, and participants from the survey gave suggestions to make dating apps safer. For instance, many recommended better content moderation systems to filter out inappropriate messages and problematic users.
Participants wanted features to make it easier for marginalized communities to connect and avoid people who harass or discriminate. They also wanted better enforcement and stricter consequences for people who violated an app’s community guidelines, like making it impossible, not just harder, for banned users to get back on the apps.
Another thing to think about is how new technology is being incorporated into the apps you use and what that means for your safety and privacy. Artificial intelligence (AI) is becoming more popular and accessible, and dating app companies are integrating this technology into their platforms to help manage user safety.
With evolving technologies and changes in the sociopolitical climate, these safety issues are not going away. In fact, they may become more complicated in the future. It is crucial to think about what you can do promote your safety while using dating apps, both online and in person.
Christopher Dietzel receives funding from Le Fonds de recherche du Québec – Société et culture (FRQSC).
André Matar 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.
Canada’s policymakers are searching for new, sustainable sources of economic strength. One such source is already here and is being overlooked: the emerging Indigenous economy. It has the potential to boost Canada’s economy by more than $60 billion a year.
But Indigenous Peoples are still largely seen as an economic liability to manage instead of an opportunity for growth. It is time for a mindset shift. For it to happen, the federal government should remove unfair economic barriers and invest in closing the employment and income gap.
Compounding this challenge is Canada’s aging labour force. The number of people aged 65 and over is growing six times faster than the number of children aged 14 and under — those who will be entering the job market in the coming years. This demographic shift places additional pressure on pensions, the health-care system and the economy.
A BNN Bloomberg feature about the Indigenous economy in Canada.
If Indigenous Peoples could participate in the economy at the same rate as non-Indigenous Canadians, their GDP contribution could increase from about $55 billion to well over $100 billion annually.
Despite this potential, Canada has largely failed to invest in Indigenous Peoples and reform the colonial structures that create inequality.
While some progress has been made, such as the First Nations Fiscal Management Act that offers communities tools to strengthen their economies, progress is still too slow.
In contrast, First Nations communities are constrained by Canadian institutions. The Indian Act limits First Nations’ authority over their own affairs, segregating them from mainstream finance mechanisms. Unclear legal jurisdiction between federal, provincial and Indigenous governments and weak property rights discourage business investments.
Limited authority and fiscal powers mean First Nations governments cannot provide services at national standards and must depend on other governments.
Compounding these issues is the fragmented, insufficient and culturally inappropriate nature of federal support systems. First Nations people have economic advantages and an entrepreneurial spirit, but they are burdened with unfair economic barriers, such as inadequate infrastructure, limited access to capital and administrative hurdles.
The RoadMap Project, a national initiative led by the First Nations Financial Management Board and other Indigenous organizations, proposes a pathway to economic reconciliation. Investing in the Indigenous economy means supporting Indigenous training, providing access to capital for Indigenous organizations and reforming the institutions that continue to impose systemic barriers.
Online learning could help remote communities achieve educational goals, but its success depends on major investments in high-speed internet access, which remains lacking in many areas.
Internationally, development banks have been used to fill credit gaps when the private sector is unable to meet the needs of emerging economies.
In Canada, the First Nations Financial Management Board and other Indigenous organizations are calling for a similar solution: the creation of an Indigenous Development Finance Organization. By lending to Indigenous governments and businesses, this finance organization could bridge the gap between the financial markets and the Indigenous economy.
While investments in capacity and development finance are urgent needs, only the dismantling of economic barriers and increased access to effective institutions can assure Indigenous development.
Legislation such as the First Nations Fiscal Management Act and the Framework Agreement on First Nation Land Management can support Indigenous economies through taxation, budgeting, land codes and financial laws. They offer a pathway between the Indian Act framework and self-government, without waiting on lengthy negotiations.
Growing stronger together
Canada’s economic future will remain uncertain if short-term solutions keep being prioritized while ignoring the growth potential of the Indigenous economy. Improvements to the status quo are no longer sufficient.
The federal government must support Indigenous-led initiatives like the RoadMap Project to foster shared growth and prosperity for Indigenous Peoples and all Canadians alike. Investments are needed to narrow the employment and income gap through new supports for capacity, access to capital and institutional reform.
Mylon Ollila is a Senior Strategist for the First Nations Financial Management Board.
Hugo Asselin 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.
