A conspiracy theory literally made Trump president: It was his relentless advocacy of the “birther” lie about Barack Obama that turned him from a reality show clown into a political figure. He didn’t deliver the goods then, either: He claimed he had sent investigators to Hawaii “and they cannot believe what they’re finding,” but for some reason the revelations from these phantom investigators were never released.

But that didn’t slow him down. As a 2016 candidate and then president, there was no conspiracy theory too ridiculous for Trump to spread, even if he was usually careful not to come out and say definitively that he believed them. Was Ted Cruz’s dad in cahoots with Lee Harvey Oswald to kill JFK? It sure seems like it. Was Antonin Scalia murdered? “They say they found a pillow on his face, which is a pretty unusual place to find a pillow,” so gosh, who knows? Do vaccines cause autism? Probably. QAnon? “I heard that these are people that love our country.” Did you read a report that made Trump look bad? Fake news, don’t believe it. That’s not to mention voter fraud conspiracies and the “Great Replacement” theory.

Tech CEOs, futurists, and venture capitalists describe artificial general intelligence (AGI) as if it were an inevitable and ultimate goal for technology development. In reality, the term is a vague signifier for a technology that will somehow lead to endless abundance for humankind — and conveniently also a means to avoid accountability as tech moguls make off with billions in capital investment and, more alarmingly, public spending.

[...]

The second issue is closely related to the first: claims of “AGI” are a cover for abandoning the current social contract. Instead of focusing on the here and now, many people who focus on AGI think we ought to abandon all other scientific and socially beneficial pursuits and focus entirely on issues related to developing (and protecting against) AGI.

Il ne s’agit pas ici d’innovation, mais d’une offre publique d’achat hostile sur la monnaie. En l’absence de toute réglementation sérieuse, les stablecoins ne sont ni stables ni une réelle alternative au dollar. Ils ne sont que le cheval de Troie d’une privatisation de l’argent.

The social media billionaires want us to believe their putrid platforms are the “new town squares.” That their half-baked social videos and for-you feeds have replaced the agora. And that, somehow, we’re all better for it.

It’s the most overused, meaningless claim on the Internet.

A litany of exploiters and extractors have trotted out that same phrase to excuse the vagaries of their platforms and give themselves a free pass to irresponsibility, hostility, and self-enrichment.

But their apps — virtual panopticons — have more in common with prison yards and shopping malls than public forums.

Quoi de plus neutre, dit-on, qu’un ordinateur ? Erreur : derrière leurs verdicts froids, algorithmes et automates encapsulent tous les biais des humains qui les conçoivent. Basée sur le modèle de l’individu calculateur, héritière d’une histoire tissée de choix idéologiques, l’intelligence artificielle est une machine politique. La mettre au service du bien commun implique d’abord de la déconstruire.

La désinformation en ligne fait partie intégrante de la stratégie des extrêmes droites, tandis que les formations de gauche, qu’elles soient radicales, écologistes ou sociales-démocrates, ont moins recours à cette pratique, selon une étude récente réalisée par des universitaires néerlandais.

Imaginez un monde dans lequel, au moment même où une régulation du tabac était débattue au parlement européen, les plateaux télé, les radios et les journaux invitaient systématiquement le directeur de la recherche de Philip Morris, en le présentant comme un pionnier scientifique de la chimie des nouvelles générations de cigarettes. Omettant d’évoquer sa casquette industrielle et ses conflits d’intérêts, les journalistes le questionneraient sur l’avenir de la cigarette, les enjeux sur la compétitivité économique du pays et les régulations adéquates.

The newspapers this morning all contain analysis pieces trying to explain why Trump is imposing 25 percent tariffs on Canada and Mexico. You can see the writers struggling, because this is a profoundly self-destructive move — it will impose huge, possibly devastating costs on U.S. manufacturing, while significantly raising the cost of living — without any visible justification. Yet the conventions of mainstream journalism make it hard to say directly that the president’s actions are just vindictive and senseless.

Entretien avec l'historien Johann Chapoutot, spécialiste du nazisme.

Au moment où le centre et les conservateurs se rapprochent de l’extrême droite dans de nombreux pays d’Europe, dont la France, je rappelle que l’arrivée d’Hitler au pouvoir est liée, non à un vote populaire mais à une décision politique cynique des libéraux autoritaires – Franz von Papen en l’occurrence. Ce dernier a pensé que la meilleure manière de se maintenir au pouvoir, c’était de s’allier avec les nazis. Or cette décision a été prise dans un contexte d’effondrement du parti nazi qui aurait pu conduire à sa disparition.

Cette histoire montre que l’arrivée des nazis au pouvoir n’était pas inéluctable, pas plus que le « retour » de l’extrême droite aujourd’hui n’est inéluctable. Il n’y a pas de phénomènes géologiques ou tectoniques ou hydrographiques à l’œuvre, il y a des acteurs politiques avec leurs intérêts, leurs décisions, leurs responsabilités.

J’ai récemment assisté au Movement for Socialism (Mouvement pour le Socialisme) à Zurich, un joli rassemblement de gauche dans un contexte de résistance au World Economic Forum (WEF) à Davos. Voici quelques observations et points relevés pendant cet évènement, ainsi que les discussions qui en découlent.

Americans are, of course, the most thoroughly and passively indoctrinated people on earth. They know next to nothing as a rule about their own history, or the histories of other nations, or the histories of the various social movements that have risen and fallen in the past, and they certainly know little or nothing of the complexities and contradictions comprised within words like “socialism” and “capitalism.” Chiefly, what they have been trained not to know or even suspect is that, in many ways, they enjoy far fewer freedoms, and suffer under a more intrusive centralized state, than do the citizens of countries with more vigorous social-democratic institutions. This is at once the most comic and most tragic aspect of the excitable alarm that talk of social democracy or democratic socialism can elicit on these shores. An enormous number of Americans have been persuaded to believe that they are freer in the abstract than, say, Germans or Danes precisely because they possess far fewer freedoms in the concrete. They are far more vulnerable to medical and financial crisis, far more likely to receive inadequate health coverage, far more prone to irreparable insolvency, far more unprotected against predatory creditors, far more subject to income inequality, and so forth, while effectively paying more in tax (when one figures in federal, state, local, and sales taxes, and then compounds those by all the expenditures that in this country, as almost nowhere else, their taxes do not cover). One might think that a people who once rebelled against the mightiest empire on earth on the principle of no taxation without representation would not meekly accept taxation without adequate government services. But we accept what we have become used to, I suppose. Even so, one has to ask, what state apparatus in the “free” world could be more powerful and tyrannical than the one that taxes its citizens while providing no substantial civic benefits in return, solely in order to enrich a piratically overinflated military-industrial complex and to ease the tax burdens of the immensely wealthy?

Est-il acceptable, souhaitable, responsable d'utiliser des arguments d'essence néo-libérale (rentabilité, performances, compétitivité etc) pour défendre des valeurs progressistes ?

Whenever I make an argument like that I get similar responses: “You have to be pragmatic” or “Games of intellectual purity don’t get us anywhere” or “The argument needs to work for those we want to convince” or “Shut up” (it still is the Internet after all). And I am not saying that those replies don’t have any value. They are pragmatic. Saying something in a way that people in power like or that supports their world view increases the chances of creating change. Especially when one has facts and studies at one’s disposal (at least that was how it maybe was a bit in the past before the reign of Musk).

But I think there is a cost. Because I think people mistake tactics for strategy. The basic difference between tactics and strategy is that while tactics focus on smaller, short-term actions, strategy looks at the long-term big picture. And I feel like that is where the costs stack up.

By crunching all the different datasets together, the researchers were able to create what they described as an aggregate “factuality score” for each politician and each party, based on the links that MPs had shared on Twitter.

The data showed conclusively that far-right populism was “the strongest determinant for the propensity to spread misinformation”, they concluded, with MPs from centre-right, centre-left and far-left populist parties “not linked” to the practice.

This is all being spun by the Trump administration as an effort to save money and reduce government "waste," but no one should be fooled. The sadism of these efforts belies the psychological damage motivating people like Musk and Russ Vought, the Project 2025 author Trump nominated to run the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). MAGA is certainly a racist and sexist movement, but it's crucially also a movement of bullies lashing out at people whose skills and talents remind MAGA folks of their own insecurities. Nowhere is this more evident than in the unhinged MAGA hatred of federal workers, a group largely known for being humble and hard-working, reminding MAGA leaders of their own lack of basic virtues. 

Selon un sondage réalisé par YouGov pour Le HuffPost, 70 % des Français sont favorables à la création d’un impôt sur les ménages les plus riches pour financer la baisse du déficit public. Un score en légère hausse en comparaison du mois de septembre, lorsque 67 % des sondés se disaient favorables à cette option. Détail intéressant, l’idée séduit l’ensemble du spectre politique, y compris chez les sympathisants de formations politiques hostiles à toute hausse de fiscalité chez les plus riches. Ainsi, 73 % des électeurs LR se disent favorables à cette idée, tandis que ceux de Renaissance l’approuvent à 75 %.

Despite these ugly attitudes from Trump and his supporters, in the past few months, there's been a deluge of pundits expressing confusion and outrage at straight women who conclude that it's better to be single than waste your one precious life dating — much less marrying — conservative men. Trump's running mate, Sen. JD Vance of Ohio, famously and repeatedly insisted that such women are "miserable cat ladies," even though it's self-evident that cats make better company than MAGA men. Even the Washington Post editorial board got involved, calling on women to "compromise" by marrying Trump voters. 

In 2024, women increasingly responded to these pressures with a "no thank you," though often phrased less politely. After Trump won the election, there was even a spike in interest in the South Korean "4b" movement, where women quit dating, marrying, or having children with men. In truth, this idea was more aspirational than realistic, but the discourse mattered nonetheless. It created space for women to ask the question: Why should they sacrifice their happiness to save the institution of heterosexuality?

Musk, the world's richest person, spent more than a quarter of a billion dollars helping Trump get elected president in November. Removing the crash-disclosure provision would particularly benefit Tesla, which has reported most of the crashes – more than 1,500 – to federal safety regulators under the program. Tesla has been targeted in National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) investigations, including three stemming from the data.

When the world’s on fire, reporting “some say it’s not that warm” isn’t brave — it’s complicit. If journalists can’t bring themselves to point at a full-blown authoritarian and say “this is some bad shit,” then maybe they should switch to weather forecasting, where at least the stakes are lower.

The time for milquetoast coverage is over. Either tell the truth, naked and ugly, or don’t act surprised when your freedom to write anything at all goes up in smoke.

Voters face an easy but tectonic choice in the race for the White House.

Will they choose the first woman or the oldest man to be the next president?

Will they choose the prosecutor or the convict?

What's going on here isn't especially confusing. Prior to Dobbs, calling yourself "pro-life" was a low-cost way for Republican voters to tell a story where they are morally upright heroes while casting feminists, urban liberals, college kids, and racial minorities as oversexed heathens. When abortion is legal, it's easy to condemn other people's abortions as a matter of "convenience" or say they're "using it for birth control" or employ other euphemisms for promiscuity, while quietly believing the abortions you and your friends get are justified.

There is never any under-layer of irony, complexity, nuance or depth. It’s all surface. Some Americans might see this as refreshingly upfront. Well, we don’t. We see it as having no inner world, no soul. And in Britain we traditionally side with David, not Goliath. All our heroes are plucky underdogs: Robin Hood, Dick Whittington, Oliver Twist. Trump is neither plucky, nor an underdog. He is the exact opposite of that. He’s not even a spoiled rich-boy, or a greedy fat-cat. He’s more a fat white slug. A Jabba the Hutt of privilege.

Walz, with his cheerful goober dad persona, offers a view of masculinity that is far tougher than that displayed by even the most steroid-inflated men of the MAGA world. He's a guy who isn't afraid of basic empathy. A man who is confident enough not to run from those who are different. A man so sure of himself that he can let a woman be his boss without acting threatened by her power. That's what real strength looks like. No wonder a weak man like Trump thinks Walz is the apocalypse.

I work in tech. I think a lot of cool stuff is being built and a lot of good work is being done. But tech is a mature industry, and most of what is interesting these days has to do with bringing the things we learned from 2000-2015 about how to use software into places that have not yet modernized. We’re at the tail end of what’s interesting and good and novel. Software technology has very little left to change in a major way. And the entire ethos of a16z and the like has utterly failed to produce breakthroughs in computer hardware, biological sciences, energy, environment or any other major sector. The last decade of innovation has been entirely about reducing friction in commerce. That’s it. And it’s not that profitable and will end up with a very small number of winners.

Une étude montre que la majorité des Américains se préoccuent des questions liées au changement climatique et sont en faveur de mesures pour lutter contre celui-ci. Mais plus intéressant : la majorité des Américains sont également persuadés que seule une minorité de leurs compatriotes partagent ce point de vue. Cette "fausse réalité sociale" peut à son tour dissuader les politiciens de prendre des mesures fortes.

Distorted beliefs about support for climate policy, and about concerns over climate change in general, are so commonly held among the more than 6,000 American adults in the researchers’ nationally representative sample that the study’s authors call these misperceptions a “false social reality.” Recent polls from the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication show that 66 to 80 percent of people in the U.S. support major climate mitigation policies. But participants in the new study estimated that only between 37 and 43 percent do so. A range of 80 to 90 percent of those polled by the researchers underestimated the U.S. population’s climate concern and support for major climate mitigation policies.

But isn’t “weird” just making fun of people? Well … yes. And that’s good. It’s good to mock and make fun of people who are bad or want to do bad things. It’s also necessary politically. One of the challenges of the Trump era is that Trumpism is very threatening and dangerous. It aims to upend and destroy the foundations of our civic democracy. But in cataloguing these threats and pumping up outrage over every Trumpian transgression we can also build up the image of their power like inflating a vast flaccid balloon, a sort of collective psyching yourself out. Good thrusting mockery cuts right through that. Yes, they’re dangerous. But they’re also insecure, stunted degenerates. They’re weird. Normal people don’t want to be around them. They think this kind of talk is normal because it’s common parlance in the far-right podcast subculture they live in. That’s really the JD Vance story right there. In his world, raging at miserable cat ladies trying to rule our lives doesn’t seem strange.