Anyone

cross-posted from: https://slrpnk.net/post/19770867

Archived link

...

Ukraine has urgently called on the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) to address Russia’s illegal deportation of 19,546 Ukrainian children and the disappearance of an additional 1,700, all victims of Russian aggression.

Estimates suggest that 1.6 million Ukrainian children remain under occupation or in Russia. To date, only around 600 have been repatriated, with each case being a complex and arduous struggle.

The Russian authorities are not only separating these children from their national identity — they are forcibly imposing Russian culture on them, militarising them, and grooming them for future conflicts.

...

Children in occupied territories are trained to assemble firearms and operate drones within Russian military youth units

...

Thousands remain ensnared in this system, with some boys, abducted by Russia and sent to fight against their homeland upon turning 18.

...

“Forced mobilisation had begun in the city. Draft papers were delivered to every house, and Maksym’s friends were being grabbed right off the streets. One of them was forced to sign a contract with the Russian army under the threat of 25 years in prison,” [head of the Save Ukraine NGO Mykol] Kuleba [wrote] in story of one of the Ukrainian boys.

...

Ukraine’s youth face an existential crisis — threatened by immediate physical harm, severely disrupted education, and the erosion of their national identity

...

cross-posted from: https://slrpnk.net/post/19770867

Archived link

...

Ukraine has urgently called on the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) to address Russia’s illegal deportation of 19,546 Ukrainian children and the disappearance of an additional 1,700, all victims of Russian aggression.

Estimates suggest that 1.6 million Ukrainian children remain under occupation or in Russia. To date, only around 600 have been repatriated, with each case being a complex and arduous struggle.

The Russian authorities are not only separating these children from their national identity — they are forcibly imposing Russian culture on them, militarising them, and grooming them for future conflicts.

...

Children in occupied territories are trained to assemble firearms and operate drones within Russian military youth units

...

Thousands remain ensnared in this system, with some boys, abducted by Russia and sent to fight against their homeland upon turning 18.

...

“Forced mobilisation had begun in the city. Draft papers were delivered to every house, and Maksym’s friends were being grabbed right off the streets. One of them was forced to sign a contract with the Russian army under the threat of 25 years in prison,” [head of the Save Ukraine NGO Mykol] Kuleba [wrote] in story of one of the Ukrainian boys.

...

Ukraine’s youth face an existential crisis — threatened by immediate physical harm, severely disrupted education, and the erosion of their national identity

...

Archived link

...

Ukraine has urgently called on the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) to address Russia’s illegal deportation of 19,546 Ukrainian children and the disappearance of an additional 1,700, all victims of Russian aggression.

Estimates suggest that 1.6 million Ukrainian children remain under occupation or in Russia. To date, only around 600 have been repatriated, with each case being a complex and arduous struggle.

The Russian authorities are not only separating these children from their national identity — they are forcibly imposing Russian culture on them, militarising them, and grooming them for future conflicts.

...

Children in occupied territories are trained to assemble firearms and operate drones within Russian military youth units

...

Thousands remain ensnared in this system, with some boys, abducted by Russia and sent to fight against their homeland upon turning 18.

...

“Forced mobilisation had begun in the city. Draft papers were delivered to every house, and Maksym’s friends were being grabbed right off the streets. One of them was forced to sign a contract with the Russian army under the threat of 25 years in prison,” [head of the Save Ukraine NGO Mykol] Kuleba [wrote] in story of one of the Ukrainian boys.

...

Ukraine’s youth face an existential crisis — threatened by immediate physical harm, severely disrupted education, and the erosion of their national identity

...

cross-posted from: https://slrpnk.net/post/19767918

Why do people living in democratic countries vote for political candidates who openly violate democratic standards? A new study by a University of Notre Dame [in France] found that diverse understandings of democracy among voters can lead to votes for authoritarian-leaning political leaders.

“A considerable variety in democratic views leads part of the electorate to overlook violations of democratic norms such as minority rights protection or restraints on executive power,” said Marc Jacob, assistant professor of democracy and global affairs at Notre Dame’s Keough School of Global Affairs. “These varied attitudes represent an important vulnerability for the democratic system as they can enable authoritarian political candidates to access and retain power.”

The study, [...] found that voters' differing conceptions of democracy shape their ability to recognize democratic violations and, in turn, affect their voting choices.

Jacob and co-authors Natasha Wunsch of the University of Fribourg, Switzerland, and Laurenz Derksen of ETH Zurich conducted a candidate choice experiment in Poland, a democracy where elections remain competitive despite some democratic backsliding over the past several years. (Democratic backsliding occurs when existing democracies slip backward toward autocracy and is currently taking place in every region of the world.)

The researchers found that respondents who supported democracy in principle but adhered less strongly to liberal democratic norms, such as minority rights protection and constraints on executive power, tolerated democratic violations more readily.

[...]

“Democracy education often features big, abstract ideas, but it’s just as important to show people how civil liberties, power-sharing, and the rule of law directly benefit them—and to remind them that their votes play a crucial role in keeping those values alive.”

cross-posted from: https://slrpnk.net/post/19767918

Why do people living in democratic countries vote for political candidates who openly violate democratic standards? A new study by a University of Notre Dame [in France] found that diverse understandings of democracy among voters can lead to votes for authoritarian-leaning political leaders.

“A considerable variety in democratic views leads part of the electorate to overlook violations of democratic norms such as minority rights protection or restraints on executive power,” said Marc Jacob, assistant professor of democracy and global affairs at Notre Dame’s Keough School of Global Affairs. “These varied attitudes represent an important vulnerability for the democratic system as they can enable authoritarian political candidates to access and retain power.”

The study, [...] found that voters' differing conceptions of democracy shape their ability to recognize democratic violations and, in turn, affect their voting choices.

Jacob and co-authors Natasha Wunsch of the University of Fribourg, Switzerland, and Laurenz Derksen of ETH Zurich conducted a candidate choice experiment in Poland, a democracy where elections remain competitive despite some democratic backsliding over the past several years. (Democratic backsliding occurs when existing democracies slip backward toward autocracy and is currently taking place in every region of the world.)

The researchers found that respondents who supported democracy in principle but adhered less strongly to liberal democratic norms, such as minority rights protection and constraints on executive power, tolerated democratic violations more readily.

[...]

“Democracy education often features big, abstract ideas, but it’s just as important to show people how civil liberties, power-sharing, and the rule of law directly benefit them—and to remind them that their votes play a crucial role in keeping those values alive.”

Why do people living in democratic countries vote for political candidates who openly violate democratic standards? A new study by a University of Notre Dame [in France] found that diverse understandings of democracy among voters can lead to votes for authoritarian-leaning political leaders.

“A considerable variety in democratic views leads part of the electorate to overlook violations of democratic norms such as minority rights protection or restraints on executive power,” said Marc Jacob, assistant professor of democracy and global affairs at Notre Dame’s Keough School of Global Affairs. “These varied attitudes represent an important vulnerability for the democratic system as they can enable authoritarian political candidates to access and retain power.”

The study, [...] found that voters' differing conceptions of democracy shape their ability to recognize democratic violations and, in turn, affect their voting choices.

Jacob and co-authors Natasha Wunsch of the University of Fribourg, Switzerland, and Laurenz Derksen of ETH Zurich conducted a candidate choice experiment in Poland, a democracy where elections remain competitive despite some democratic backsliding over the past several years. (Democratic backsliding occurs when existing democracies slip backward toward autocracy and is currently taking place in every region of the world.)

The researchers found that respondents who supported democracy in principle but adhered less strongly to liberal democratic norms, such as minority rights protection and constraints on executive power, tolerated democratic violations more readily.

[...]

“Democracy education often features big, abstract ideas, but it’s just as important to show people how civil liberties, power-sharing, and the rule of law directly benefit them—and to remind them that their votes play a crucial role in keeping those values alive.”

cross-posted from: https://slrpnk.net/post/19765761

Here is the World Happiness Report 2025

Global evidence on the perceived and actual return of lost wallets shows that people are much too pessimistic about the kindness of their communities compared to reality. Actual rates of wallet return are around twice as high as people expect.

Believing that others are willing to return your lost wallet is also shown to be a strong predictor of population happiness: Nordic nations once again top the ranking of the world’s happiest countries, but they also rank among the top places for expected and actual return of lost wallets.

The findings are published today to mark the UN’s International Day of Happiness. They are powered by Gallup World Poll data and other sources, including the Lloyd’s Register Foundation World Risk Poll, and analysed by leading experts in wellbeing science.

Further results published in this 13th edition of the World Happiness Report, focused on the theme of “caring and sharing”, include:

[...]

World Happiness Report 2025 also contains a ranking of the world’s happiest countries. Finland leads the world in happiness for the eighth year in a row, with Finns reporting an average score of 7.736 (out of 10) when asked to evaluate their lives.

[...]

Costa Rica (6th) and Mexico (10th) both enter the top 10 for the first time, while continued upward trends for countries such as Lithuania (16th), Slovenia (19th) and Czechia (20th) underline the convergence of happiness levels between Eastern, Central and Western Europe.

[...]

Here is the World Happiness Report 2025

Global evidence on the perceived and actual return of lost wallets shows that people are much too pessimistic about the kindness of their communities compared to reality. Actual rates of wallet return are around twice as high as people expect.

Believing that others are willing to return your lost wallet is also shown to be a strong predictor of population happiness: Nordic nations once again top the ranking of the world’s happiest countries, but they also rank among the top places for expected and actual return of lost wallets.

The findings are published today to mark the UN’s International Day of Happiness. They are powered by Gallup World Poll data and other sources, including the Lloyd’s Register Foundation World Risk Poll, and analysed by leading experts in wellbeing science.

Further results published in this 13th edition of the World Happiness Report, focused on the theme of “caring and sharing”, include:

[...]

World Happiness Report 2025 also contains a ranking of the world’s happiest countries. Finland leads the world in happiness for the eighth year in a row, with Finns reporting an average score of 7.736 (out of 10) when asked to evaluate their lives.

[...]

Costa Rica (6th) and Mexico (10th) both enter the top 10 for the first time, while continued upward trends for countries such as Lithuania (16th), Slovenia (19th) and Czechia (20th) underline the convergence of happiness levels between Eastern, Central and Western Europe.

[...]

cross-posted from: https://slrpnk.net/post/19720959

Political scientists and economists have traditionally argued the more economic prosperity a country has, the more democratic it becomes - but Professor Ian MacKenzie from University of Queensland’s School of Economics in Australia says the relationship is not simple.

“When a country’s income is very low, survival is the focus and the marginal benefits of consumption of material goods is very high,” Professor MacKenzie said.

“Essentially, when you don’t have much, an extra dollar is very, very valuable to you.

“Because of that, you won’t invest time in political activism, you’ll invest it in working to increase your income.”

Professor MacKenzie, along with economists Dr Dario Debowicz (Swansea University), Professor Alex Dickson (University of Strathclyde, Glasgow) and Associate Professor Petros Sekeris (Toulouse Business School), looked at data from every country between 1800 to 2010 to analyse their income and democratic score.

They hypothesised the relationship between the income of a country and its level of democracy is not linear but instead forms a U-shape.

Professor MacKenzie said when societies reach a high level of income, the curve shifts towards increased democratisation.

“As income increases, there comes a turning point at which your income has increased so much you start to value improvements in political freedoms,” he said.

“People feel more empowered to challenge authorities.

“A lot of people believe there is no link between income and democracy, or that there is a positive link – as in more income equals more democracy.

“What we’ve shown is that it’s more complicated than that.”

Professor MacKenzie said China was a country to watch in that it has experienced extraordinary economic growth over the past 4 decades while remaining an authoritarian state.

“The U-shaped theory suggests political uprisings could occur if economic growth continues,” he said.

“China has many citizens who are benefitting from the country opening its markets and increasing its GDP (gross domestic product) so there’s a lot of evidence to suggest they may start craving democratic principles.”

The research was published in Springer Nature.

Political scientists and economists have traditionally argued the more economic prosperity a country has, the more democratic it becomes - but Professor Ian MacKenzie from University of Queensland’s School of Economics in Australia says the relationship is not simple.

“When a country’s income is very low, survival is the focus and the marginal benefits of consumption of material goods is very high,” Professor MacKenzie said.

“Essentially, when you don’t have much, an extra dollar is very, very valuable to you.

“Because of that, you won’t invest time in political activism, you’ll invest it in working to increase your income.”

Professor MacKenzie, along with economists Dr Dario Debowicz (Swansea University), Professor Alex Dickson (University of Strathclyde, Glasgow) and Associate Professor Petros Sekeris (Toulouse Business School), looked at data from every country between 1800 to 2010 to analyse their income and democratic score.

They hypothesised the relationship between the income of a country and its level of democracy is not linear but instead forms a U-shape.

Professor MacKenzie said when societies reach a high level of income, the curve shifts towards increased democratisation.

“As income increases, there comes a turning point at which your income has increased so much you start to value improvements in political freedoms,” he said.

“People feel more empowered to challenge authorities.

“A lot of people believe there is no link between income and democracy, or that there is a positive link – as in more income equals more democracy.

“What we’ve shown is that it’s more complicated than that.”

Professor MacKenzie said China was a country to watch in that it has experienced extraordinary economic growth over the past 4 decades while remaining an authoritarian state.

“The U-shaped theory suggests political uprisings could occur if economic growth continues,” he said.

“China has many citizens who are benefitting from the country opening its markets and increasing its GDP (gross domestic product) so there’s a lot of evidence to suggest they may start craving democratic principles.”

The research was published in Springer Nature.

cross-posted from: https://slrpnk.net/post/19676598

The copyright status of digital content shared online is often unclear, hindering its reuse. To address this issue, the CommonsDB initiative, funded by the European Commission, is building a prototype registry of Public Domain and openly licensed works. To enhance legal certainty for digital content reuse, the registry will employ decentralized identifiers for consistent content and rights recognition.

[...]

The copyright status of digital content shared online is often unclear, hindering its reuse. To address this issue, the CommonsDB initiative, funded by the European Commission, is building a prototype registry of Public Domain and openly licensed works. To enhance legal certainty for digital content reuse, the registry will employ decentralized identifiers for consistent content and rights recognition.

[...]