Domain registration record

https://rdap.verisign.com/com/v1/domain/theconversation.com

Last checked: 11/2/2026, 5:50:03 PM UTC

The domain was registered on May 29, 2003. Its registration company is 1API GmbH. Registration does not confirm that a business is trustworthy.

Customer review source

https://www.trustpilot.com/review/theconversation.com

Last checked: 11/2/2026, 5:50:11 PM UTC

Trustpilot listing for theconversation.com. TrustScore: 3/5. Total reviews: 15. Saved 8 recent review excerpts; these are customer opinions, not verified facts or a representative sample. Review excerpt: In a world where there’s so much unverified information written by people who’ve read the latest socials, The Conversation is different. All their articles are written by people who have studied a topic for years. I don’t aleays agree with everything that’s written, but it is thoughtprovoking. Review excerpt: C’est mignon et fait pour les bobos. À ne pas commenter de façon critique si vous ne voulez pas voir votre commentaire être supprimé. Au début ça me semblait présenter un intérêt mais, rapidement j’ai pu changer d’avis grâce à la modération. Moralité : tous les mails vont directement dans les spams. Review excerpt: I looked through thier articles. Biased, and claim not to be. Review excerpt: the conversation.com france est un tissus de mensonge soumis à la docsa; c'est un de ses lave mains Review excerpt: You can't refute what so haughty academics write, including fact checking doctors "results," and assuredness in their prescribing and diagnosis'. Review excerpt: Les articles de The Conversation sont des articles vulgarisation bien faits et fiables, qui ne remplacent pas la consultation directe d’articles scientifiques lorsqu’un sujet l’exige. Ils constituent un excellent point d’entrée pour un sujet, en donnent les grandes lignes, le contexte, les implications. Ce média fiable constitue une très bonne sources d'informations, sauf cas particulier où le lecteur, spécialiste du sujet, veut réellement l'approfondir. Pour moi The Conversation est aussi un outil de défense cognitive valorisant la pensée critique, la vérifiabilité et la responsabilité intell Review excerpt: They have a great platform, academics and journalists. Like the other reviewer said, sometimes the truth hurts and you can guarantee those negative reviews were from people who were upset at the truth. This is one place to get honest, understandable information. Review excerpt: They remove comments that disagree with the authors of articles or offer unfavorable criticism of the article or the website. I feel the site is right-wing biased and manipulative.

Website policies

https://theconversation.com/us/terms-and-conditions

Last checked: 11/2/2026, 5:51:02 PM UTC

Terms + conditions | The Conversation Terms + conditions | The Conversation Top stories Terms & conditions User-generated content: submitting material for publication The Conversation only publishes material submitted by registered users . We accept no liability in respect of any material submitted by users and published by us, and we are not responsible for its content and accuracy. The views expressed are the personal opinions of the experts named. They may not represent the views of The Conversation or any other organization unless specifically stated. The Conversation attempts to provide a range of views from the academic and research community. Users may submit material for publication under the following terms and conditions: Publication of any material you submit to us will be at our sole discretion. We reserve the right to make additions or deletions to the text or graphics prior to publication, or to refuse publication. You grant us a non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable, royalty-free, worldwide license to publish and communicate to the public any material you submit to us in any format, including without limitation print and electronic format. You also agree that we may permit other parties to publish and communicate to the public any material you submit to us in any format. You warrant that any material you submit is your own original work and that you own the copyright and any other relevant rights. If you would like to tell us about material that isn&x27;t your copyright and which we may want to use, please tell us who owns it so we can ask permission to republish. You warrant that the material you submit is not obscene, offensive or otherwise illegal. You agree not to submit material that is deliberately intended to upset other users. You will take reasonable steps to ensure that any material you submit is not defamatory of any person. If you suspect that material may be defamatory (or if you are not sure), you must tell us at the time you submit the material to us. You acknowledge that any breach of these conditions may cause us damage or loss. You agree to indemnify us in full and permanently against any third-party liabilities, claims, costs, loss or damage we incur as a result of your breach of conditions (2) to (6) above. You must act honestly and in good faith in your dealings with us and (if requested) you must provide us with reasonable assistance to settle, defend or investigate any third party claims arising as a result of our publication of material you submit to us. We reserve the right to remove your access to individual services completely if we believe you are abusing the services in any way. Interactions with our site are governed by our Community Standards (see below), which expand on the points above and are incorporated in these Terms of Service. You will be deemed to consent to these guidelines if you choose to post any content or comments to the site. General principles for authors, disclosure and peer review The Conversation is committed to the highest standards of integrity and professional conduct. Authors have a duty to ensure that their work maintains the good name of The Conversation and that of the academic and research community. The Conversation requires authors to disclose any potential conflict of interest. A conflict exists where an individual&x27;s interests diverge from their professional responsibilities such that an independent observer might reasonably conclude that the author has been unduly influenced by their own interest. Publication must include information on the sources of financial and in-kind support for the research, and must reveal actual or potential conflicts of interest. Trust in our expert voices to express, assimilate and interpret information as a human creator is paramount to The Conversation. We ask that authors do not use generative AI to create the content of articles. In line with our policy of disclosure of conflicts of interest, authors must disclose to their editor if generative AI tools have been employed for any part of their article. Research, as a general principle, should not be reported before it has been subjected to a recognized process of peer review. Registration When you register, you are registering as a personal user of theconversation.com. Access to registration areas is by your email address and password. Your use of the site is an agreement to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We allow you access to the registration areas of the site on the basis that: Your email address and password are personal to you and may not be used by anyone else to access theconversation.com. You will not do anything that would assist anyone who is not a registered user to gain access to any registration area of theconversation.com. You do not create additional registration accounts for the purpose of abusing the site or other users; nor do you seek to pass yourself off as another user. You comply with these terms and conditions. If, for any reason, we believe you have not complied with these requirements, we may, at our discretion, cancel your access to the registration areas of theconversation.com immediately and without notice. Termination of Registration If we wish to bring the agreement to an end, we will do so by emailing you at the address you have registered stating that the agreement has terminated. The agreement will terminate and your email address and password will become invalid on theconversation.com immediately. How to complain and corrections The Conversation strives to maintain the highest editorial standards at all times. However, we do not always get things right. Should you feel it necessary to correct or complain about an article, the means for doing so are contained below. The Conversation strives for fairness and accuracy at all times, and we encourage users to advise us of any significant errors . When commenting on The Conversation, you are like our guest at our dinner party. You&x27;ve been in

Website policies

https://theconversation.com/us/resources-for-media

Last checked: 11/2/2026, 5:51:02 PM UTC

Resources for media | The Conversation Resources for media | The Conversation Top stories Resources for media The Conversation is a media resource: a source of ideas, media-ready experts and free content under a Creative Commons license. Trusted content Our authors are academics and researchers with deep expertise. Our editors are professional journalists, so you can rely on high quality content that's also easy to read. Our codes of conduct ensure accuracy. All articles carry a disclosure statement listing any potential conflict of interest, and authors retain final sign off on all their articles. Our content is subject to an Editorial Charter spelling out these values Contact media-ready authors Authors are media-ready and available for follow up interviews or articles. To contact an author, visit their profile pages (by clicking on their byline). That page has a contact button that allows you to directly message the author. Republish our articles We publish all our content under Creative Commons, which means that provided you follow some simple guidelines then our articles are yours to republish, for free. To republish, click the “Republish this article” button that accompanies the article on larger screens. Follow us To follow our content, sign up for our daily newsletter, or follow us on Twitter or Facebook. If you've any questions please contact us-republish@theconversation.com. A week in health, in one email Go beyond the headlines with news and analysis from experts on infectious diseases, health disparities, health policy and more from experts around the world. Our newsletter will help you understand what’s going on, and to live a healthier life. Amanda Mascarelli Global Health Project Director Sign up today

Website information

https://theconversation.com/

Last checked: 11/2/2026, 5:51:02 PM UTC

The Conversation U.S. - News written by researchers and scientists to help you understand The Conversation U.S. - News written by researchers and scientists to help you understand Top stories Are American voters actually gloomy about the economy, or is something else going on? Erin Kay Lockwood, University of California, Irvine Not in a FEMA flood zone? Your home could still be at risk – and you could suffer more than your neighbor Yilei Yu, Rice University; Dylan Connor, Arizona State University, and James R. Elliott, Rice University How to prepare your online life for your death Jenny Tang, Carnegie Mellon University and Xiaoyuan (Owen) Wu, Carnegie Mellon University Why do galaxies rotate? Edwin Alexani, Rochester Institute of Technology and Michael Zemcov, Rochester Institute of Technology Disaster aid has become a political lottery – libraries, schools and places of worship are stepping into the breach Daniel P. Aldrich, Northeastern University Parents, let your kids eat as much candy as they want – less restriction could help reduce the urge to overeat Bryn Beeder, Miami University Getting a big head start on holiday shopping can benefit retailers and consumers alike James Malm, College of Charleston Students who attended Miami-Dade public school pre-K outperformed peers in 18-year study Charles Bleiker, Florida International University; Adam Winsler, George Mason University, and Kaitlyn Mumma, George Mason University How the law protecting Americans from surprise medical bills is driving up healthcare costs Lindsey Murtagh, Brown University From 18th-century false ballots to the second JFK and double Dan Sullivans, a brief history of spoiler candidates and the unsuccessful legal challenges to them Drew Kurlowski, Coastal Carolina University Read all our latest articles Get context to understand the news, in your inbox daily or weekly Subscribe to our newsletters Presidents of both parties defended libraries as allies of democracy for a century – until Trump A sletter New research in health and science Viruses obey the laws of physics – studying how can help researchers understand why they infect people differently and lead to better treatments Tori Russell, Rochester Institute of Technology; Karin Wuertz-Kozak, Rochester Institute of Technology, and Maureen Ferran, Rochester Institute of Technology State takeovers of struggling Texas school districts come at a high cost, with little evidence of success Daniel H. Robinson, University of Texas at Arlington Horror’s monsters find new meaning with queer and trans audiences – how ‘Teenage Sex and Death at Camp Miasma’ dissects identity Wesleigh Gates, University of California, Los Angeles An AI model’s false tip to Philadelphia police reveals how digital agents can do as they’re told and still cause trouble Anat Lior, Drexel University NASA’s Mars orbiter fleet is getting old – here’s how that could affect future exploration Margaret Landis, Arizona State University Read more new science research Are you an academic expert who wants to share your knowledge? Pitch an article You might also like… Who mapped Africa? Debunking the myth that Europeans alone plotted the continent Thomas J Bassett, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign Why over two-thirds of Americans say their country is in decline Dante Chinni, Michigan State University and Ari Pinkus, Michigan State University New restrictions on purchases with SNAP benefits in some states mean fewer convenience stores are accepting them Benjamin Chrisinger, Tufts University and Justin White, Boston University Political information increasingly comes from pop culture, outside of partisan silos but where male creators – and sometimes misogyny – dominate Karrin Vasby Anderson, Colorado State University; Natalie Pennington, Colorado State University, and Nick Marx, Colorado State University School librarians are vanishing from Michigan schools just when they are needed most Shannon Oltmann, Wayne State University and Kafi Kumasi Most read this week 1. 1. We studied 1,584 data centers – and found the buildings full of machines are tied to modest local job growth Simon Buechler, Miami University and Lyndsey Rolheiser, York University, Canada 2. 2. Congress is freeing Trump of the limited legal requirements left on him by the Supreme Court Stephanie A. (Sam) Martin, Boise State University 3. 3. Fear-based campaign ads can grab attention, but whether they win votes is less clear Monique Mitchell Turner, Michigan State University 4. 4. If Philadelphia Eagles quarterback Jalen Hurts can get dangerous blood clots, so can you – here’s how some states are trying to reduce the risk Ali Ataya, University of Florida 5. 5. Parents, let your kids eat as much candy as they want – less restriction could help reduce the urge to overeat Bryn Beeder, Miami University 6. 6. Boo! How to pick scary books for kids that thrill but won’t haunt for life Liz Rosenberg, Binghamton University, State University of New York Our partners and funders The Conversation is a nonprofit organization and our work is made possible by the generosity of our readers, foundations, and university and college members. They make it possible for us to bring this journalism to the public without paywalls or licensing fees. View all our partners and funders Founding Partners View all our Founding Partners Funders View all our Funding Partners Members View all our Member Partners Find out more about us The Conversation democratizes knowledge by helping academic experts to write for the public. Free to read. Free to republish. No ads or paywalls. Trustworthy science news Information is flying at us from all directions. And it can be overwhelming. Wouldn’t it be easier if you could get trusted science information in one place? That place is The Conversation. Each week, our team sends an email that brings together the best of our coverage of science, technology and environment. Vivian Lam Associate Health and Biomedicine Editor Subscribe today

Website information

https://theconversation.com/us/contact-us

Last checked: 11/2/2026, 5:51:02 PM UTC

Contact us We are real people and glad to assist you! Our editors and their contact information are listed on the “Our team” page. Our academic authors can be reached through their profile pages; click on the byline in an article and then the “Contact” button. For general questions on: | | | | --- | --- | | Ideas for articles | Pitch using this form | | Editorial questions or concerns | us-editorial@theconversation.com | | Technical issues or problems registering or logging in | us-support@theconversation.com | | University membership or foundation support | us-partner@theconversation.com | | Abuse of any kind | us-reportabuse@theconversation.com | | Privacy questions or concerns | us-privacy@theconversation.com | | Republication of our articles or media requests | us-republish@theconversation.com | | Sponsorship of our site or newsletter | us-sponsor@theconversation.com | | Corrections or complaints | us-corrections@theconversation.com | | Donations, including updating or cancelling a recurring donation | us-donations@theconversation.com | | All other questions | us-support@theconversation.com | Postal address The Conversation US, Inc. 303 Wyman Street, Suite 300 Waltham, MA 02451 Social media Like us on Facebook at theConversationUS Subscribe on YouTube at TheConversationUS ​ ​") ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ Copyright © 2010–2026, The Conversation US, Inc.

Website policies

https://theconversation.com/us/privacy-policy

Last checked: 11/2/2026, 5:51:02 PM UTC

Privacy policy | The Conversation Top stories Privacy policy Last updated: 11 April 2013 The Conversation is committed to protecting the personal information of both our contributors and readers. We want our website to be a safe and enjoyable environment. Here we aim to help you to understand what information we might collect about you and how we use it. In this Privacy Policy, “personal information” means information or an opinion about a person whose identity is apparent, or can be reasonably ascertained, from the information or opinion. Data protection principles The Conversation complies with the principles of the Data Protection Act 1998 and the Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003. The eight principles relating to the processing of personal information are: 1. Fairly and lawfully processed 2. Processed for a limited time 3. Adequate, relevant & not excessive 4. Accurate 5. Not kept longer than necessary 6. Processed in accordance with your rights 7. Secure 8. Not transferred to countries without adequate protection We will always follow these principles and ask you how you would like us to communicate with you. Collection and use of personal information The Conversation will, from time to time, collect and use personal information. The types of personal information collected and the purposes for which that personal information will be used will depend on the circumstances. For example, The Conversation may collect personal information when you: Sign up as a contributor to or create a profile on The Conversation Join a conversation or comment on someone else's article or contribution to The Conversation Participate in a survey or provide feedback to The Conversation Disclosure of personal information If you sign up as a contributor to The Conversation, we will publish your contributor profile, which may include personal information, on The Conversation. If you join a conversation or comment on someone else's article or contribution, The Conversation will publish your post, which may include personal information, on The Conversation, such as your name and position. Other than these situations, The Conversation will not disclose your personal information to third parties except: To third parties which assist the operation of The Conversation (in which case we require these contractors to keep that personal information confidential and not to use or disclose it for any purpose other than the purpose of performing those services) In exceptional circumstances, The Conversation may be required or authorized by law to disclose personal information, for example to law enforcement authorities or to prevent a serious threat to public safety With your consent Handling of personal information The Conversation will take all reasonable steps to protect all personal information held by it from misuse and loss and from unauthorized access, modification and disclosure. Accessing your personal information Any person may seek access to personal information, which The Conversation holds about that person and we will provide access to that information upon request. There are certain exemptions, which may apply to the provision of that information. We may require that the person requesting access provide suitable identification and we may charge an administration fee for granting access to information. Requests to access personal information held by The Conversation should be addressed to us-privacy@theconversation.com.

Website information

https://theconversation.com/are-american-voters-actually-gloomy-about-the-economy-or-is-something-else-going-on-295476

Last checked: 11/2/2026, 5:51:02 PM UTC

Are American voters actually gloomy about the economy, or is something else going on? Skip to content Economic pessimism among Americans in both political parties is deepening ahead of the November midterm elections, amid factors such as high energy prices and cost-of-living pressures. AP Photo/Jeff Chiu Polling is looking grim for Republicans ahead of the U.S. midterm elections on Nov. 3, 2026, due in large part to deep pessimism among the public about the economy. At first glance, this might seem surprising. With the exception of inflation, many economic measures remain strong, including gross domestic product growth. But consumer sentiment continues to languish. This has prompted a debate over whether mere “vibes” are in play, or whether these long-used metrics are no longer capturing something fundamental to Americans’ economic well-being. This debate matters politically because voters are placing an overwhelming priority on the economy as an issue in the midterms. A Pew Research survey in early October 2026 found that 84% of registered voters said the economy was very important to their vote, and the concern is bipartisan. Among the issues in that Pew survey, for example, “the economy” was the least polarizing, with 82% of Republicans and 88% of Democrats ranking it as very important. Meanwhile, the overall drop in voters’ economic outlook has largely been driven by growing pessimism among Republicans. While Democrats remain much gloomier about the economy than Republicans, the gap is narrowing. These trends help explain why Democrats are expected to make significant gains in Congress: This election will likely be seen as an indictment of how well the economy is working for ordinary Americans under President Donald Trump and the Republican-controlled Congress, despite strong macroeconomic measures. One great story in your inbox every afternoon Try our Substack So what is going on? As a scholar of financial markets and global inequality, I believe the relationship between how people see their own finances and their view of the broader economy is also changing on a more fundamental level. And this shift will affect how they judge the next class of lawmakers in power. Reality versus ‘vibes’ When scholars try to understand how people judge the economy – and how they separate their own personal circumstances from the broader economy – one of their key reference points is the University of Michigan’s consumer sentiment index. It asks respondents about their personal finances, their short-term and long-term economic outlook, and whether they think it’s a good time to make major purchases. This gauge has historically tracked key economic measures of consumer spending and inflation: The state of the broader economy usually shapes the way people think about their own financial well-being. But in recent years, these have diverged. By many measures, the economy is doing well, but people feel they’re falling behind. And this has only become more pronounced ahead of the midterms. Despite strong consumer spending, robust business investment and low unemployment, consumer sentiment keeps slipping and is now 10% below where it was a year ago, according to the Michigan index. Some commentators point to ongoing inflation as the reason for gloom. It has remained stubbornly above the Federal Reserve’s annual 2% target rate due to drivers like tariffs, energy price hikes stemming from Middle East turmoil, and massive amounts of investment in the artificial intelligence build-out. But what’s really happening is that consumer sentiment data and inflation data have become untethered. Inflation has actually dropped sharply from its 21st-century peak of 9.1% in June 2022 after the pandemic to 3.7% in September 2026, but consumer sentiment is lower now than it was even then. What about wages? Here, too, the data also doesn’t fully explain this disconnect. While inflation makes consumer goods pricier, it also lifts pay. Inflation-adjusted wages actually increased between 2022 and the first half of 2026, all while consumer sentiment remained weak. What has changed in recent months is that inflation-adjusted wages are now falling – which could help explain the darkening outlook among voters. Inequality versus growth One possibility is that deeply entrenched inequality explains this divergence. Compared with other eras of moderate-to-high inflation, the U.S. economy today is much more unequal. Income inequality has increased over the past 20 years, narrowing only during the 2008 and 2020 crises before quickly widening to prior levels. This trend is important for understanding which consumers are shelling out cash. The Fed has consistently cited strong consumer spending in its economic assessments, but the richest 10% of Americans account for half of that spending today. Meanwhile, spending by the bottom 80% of earners has fallen behind inflation. In other words, the strong total consumer spending figures reported as official data are being driven by very wealthy Americans and fail to reflect the experience of typical consumers who are the bulk of the electorate. This trend of increasing inequality has been particularly acute in terms of wealth: The top 0.1% of American households together own five times as much wealth as the bottom 50%. Much of this reflects the uneven gains of the stock market boom and how wealth is taxed. In short, Americans’ economic malaise might be driven by concerns over income and wealth that conventional measures don’t fully capture. A surging stock market in 2026 helped boost Americans’ retirement accounts, but it hasn’t translated into greater consumer confidence. AP Photo/Yuki Iwamura It’s not just about me When it comes to consumer surveys like the University of Michigan index, economists generally assume that the answers reflect the personal experience of respondents. But I agree with other scholars who argue that sometimes these answers may be based less on people’s own circumstances

Website information

https://theconversation.com/from-18th-century-false-ballots-to-the-second-jfk-and-double-dan-sullivans-a-brief-history-of-spoiler-candidates-and-the-unsuccessful-legal-challenges-to-them-295504

Last checked: 11/2/2026, 5:51:02 PM UTC

From 18th-century false ballots to the second JFK and double Dan Sullivans, a brief history of spoiler candidates and the unsuccessful legal challenges to them Skip to content The campaign of U.S. Senate candidate Mary Peltola of Alaska, a Democrat, has been rocked by accusations it recruited a spoiler candidate for the ballot. AP/Mark Thiessen Less than a week before Election Day, The New York Times reported that people with links to Alaska Democrat Mary Peltola’s U.S. Senate campaign and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee had recruited a candidate to the race whose name is nearly identical to that of the incumbent Republican senator, Dan Sullivan, whom Peltola was challenging. The plan aimed to siphon votes from the incumbent senator and help Peltola win, according to the reporting. The story has driven calls for prosecutions, lawsuits and state action. But as a political scientist who studies election law, I can say that the spoiler candidate is one of the oldest tricks in the American campaign toolbox, and the law has rarely touched it. Early ballots 19th-century voting usually involved casting a ballot printed by political parties, such as this electoral ticket for the Free Soil Party from 1848. Smithsonian National Museum of American History For most of the 1800s, American elections were conducted with ballots designed and printed by the parties. There were no official ballots printed by the state. In those days, the addition of a rival name to a party ballot by an insidious printer could swing countless votes to the opposing party. The tactic was well known, and voters were often warned to look out for the “Spurious Ticket.” By the 1890s, the government-printed ballot had gained widespread adoption and ended the practice of counterfeit tickets. But that would not be enough to deter those who wanted to deceive voters. Power of a name As observers in Alaska have noted, recruiting candidates with similar or identical names is not a new move. In John F. Kennedy’s first congressional primary, his opponent was a city councilor named Joseph Russo. An aide to Kennedy reportedly paid a janitor with the same name to enter the race. The real Russo complained, but in the end, Kennedy took more votes in the 1946 race than the Russos combined. Eight years later, the name Kennedy worked the other way, when a Gillette stockroom supervisor named John Francis Kennedy, no relation, was elected as a Democrat to the position of treasurer and receiver-general of Massachusetts, owing in large part to the familiarity of his name. Names can move votes, so namesakes can be worth recruiting. Spoilers as surrogates Some spoiler candidates are not necessarily meant to win votes. Sometimes they are there to amplify a message. In 1978, Republican Carroll Campbell was running for an open House seat in upstate South Carolina. His opponent was Max Heller, the mayor of Greenville and a Jewish refugee from Nazi-occupied Austria. Days before the election, Don Sprouse, an independent running for office for the first time, held a press conference and declared that Heller was unfit for office as he had “not made clear to the voters he is not a Christian” and was “not as qualified to represent the Christian people.” Although Campbell condemned the remarks and Sprouse received only 1,693 votes, Heller lost the race. The allegations, still unproven, of Sprouse being a “stalking-horse” for Campbell only surfaced years later, but they continued to dog Campbell when he ran for governor in 1986. Sprouse wasn’t going to spoil the election with the votes he could win, but he could be a spoiler with his message, an antisemitic appeal that Campbell would not make directly. A spoiler candidate who made antisemitic remarks in a 1978 South Carolina campaign for the House of Representatives became a campaign issue eight years later. New York Times archive Candidates who don’t even know they’re running A different type of ballot shenanigan skips the recruitment and simply puts candidates on the ballot. This was the case in 2010 when two Oakland County, Michigan, Democratic officials put candidates on the ballot under the Tea Party label in three races. The candidates didn’t even know they were running. In this case, the law did come back to bite. The county party chair and operations director were charged with perjury and forgery, but the crime was forging signatures, not their strategy. Some state election codes specifically discuss false declarations or forged election paperwork, but many don’t contemplate this type of scheme. Forgery and perjury, however, are illegal across the country, and it’s almost impossible to put an unwitting person on the ballot without one or the other. Alaska: No barriers In Alaska, this tactic can be used cheaply. There is no petition requirement to get on the ballot, just a $100 fee. Moreover, the parties can’t vet candidates in the primary. The state’s unique top-four primary system lets candidates choose their own party label. The saga of Daniel J. Sullivan), the schoolteacher known as “Petersburg Sullivan” because of where he lives, and Sen. Dan S. Sullivan) goes back longer than recent revelations. Petersburg Sullivan filed to run as a Republican in the Senate race just three days before the deadline; state officials tried to bar him from the ballot. In June a judge said there was nothing in Alaska law to prevent him from appearing on the ballot, and the state Supreme Court subsequently agreed. Since he couldn’t be removed, the state Division of Elections took unusual steps on their ballot design to help distinguish the two candidates. They listed Sen. Dan S. Sullivan as a Republican, marking him as the incumbent, and left Daniel J. Sullivan without a party designation. This had not been done for previous incumbents in at least a decade. What the law can do Assuming there is no forgery of documents with an unwitting and unwilling spoiler candidate, there is little the law can do. History sh

Website policies

https://theconversation.com/presidents-of-both-parties-defended-libraries-as-allies-of-democracy-for-a-century-until-trump-293685

Last checked: 11/2/2026, 5:51:02 PM UTC

Presidents of both parties defended libraries as allies of democracy for a century – until Trump Skip to content President-elect Franklin D. Roosevelt stands with a Queens book bus in 1932. MCNY/Gottscho-Schleisner/Archive Photos via Getty Images On March 31, 2026, President Donald Trump was asked about plans for his presidential library, the archive that presidents build to house their administration’s records. His was most likely going to be a hotel, he said, with “a beautiful building underneath and a 747 Air Force One in the lobby.” “I don’t believe in building libraries or museums,” he told reporters. Trump’s comments reflect how he has diverged from the customary and expected presidential attitude toward libraries of all types. As an information science professor, I have analyzed statements by 17 presidents, beginning with Calvin Coolidge. Combing their speeches, proclamations, messages and letters in the Public Papers of the Presidents, the American Presidency Project, the Federal Register and the American Library Association’s archives and publications, I have found that Trump has broken with a century-old tradition. Nearly all presidents of both parties since 1923 have described libraries, whether public, academic or presidential, as a prerequisite to a healthy democracy and as crucial to sustaining an informed citizenry. Trump, however, has rarely spoken of libraries at all. When he has, he has dismissed them. One great story in your inbox every afternoon Try our Substack Libraries and democracy In the 1920s, Republican Calvin Coolidge said that public libraries were “within the reach of almost everyone” and contained “the best books and authorities on any subject.” By using these institutions, he said, citizens could evaluate “current proposals for political improvement.” Democrat Franklin D. Roosevelt took up that theme as the U.S. edged toward World War II. In 1941, he opened his own presidential library, the first in what would become the National Archives’ system. At the dedication, FDR argued that libraries proliferated in democracies where citizens refuse to accept “so-called information as may be handed out to them by certain types of self-constituted leaders who decide what is best for them.” The Cold War reinforced the emphasis on libraries as foundational to self-government. Republican Dwight D. Eisenhower feared censorship during the Red Scare and urged a 1953 audience, “Don’t join the book burners.” He also set a precedent for federal library aid by signing the Library Services Act of 1956, which authorized up to US$7.5 million a year for developing public library services for rural Americans. Eisenhower’s successor, Democrat John F. Kennedy, likewise believed that “libraries should be open to all – except the censor.” Kennedy’s budgets continued funding public libraries. In 1976, Democrat Jimmy Carter said libraries were fundamental to democracy and in 1980 he said they strengthened the First Amendment, which protects free speech, a free press and the free exercise of religion. Eight years later, Republican Ronald Reagan said that a free society “must prize its libraries just as it values its liberties.” That view outlasted the Cold War, which ended in 1991. In 1992, Republican George H.W. Bush said libraries provided the lifelong education each American needed “to remain a fully productive and fully participating citizen.” Campaigning for the Democratic Party’s nomination for president that same year, Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton argued that libraries’ provision of equal access to information helped safeguard democracy. As president, Democrat Barack Obama said in 2009 that “an informed and educated citizenry is essential to the functioning of our modern democratic society” and said libraries “can help separate truth from fiction and signal from noise.” Democrat Joe Biden subsequently called library services “essential to the well-being, health, vitality, and democracy of our Nation” in a 2022 executive order. While presidents from Eisenhower onward had tied libraries to the freedom to read, Obama and Biden carried that tradition into the fight over banning books, often by or about people of color or LGBTQ people, especially in school and public libraries. “Freedom begins with our capacity to share and access ideas, even ideas we may disagree with or find deeply offensive,” former President Obama wrote during 2022’s Banned Books Week. During National Library Week in 2023, Biden thanked librarians and vowed to “stand with teachers and parents against politicians who try to score political points by banning books.” “In America, we do not ban books,” he declared in 2024. President Lyndon Johnson signs a 1964 law expanding federal aid to libraries. Cecil W. Stoughton/The American Library Association Archives The break One of Trump’s rare public comments on libraries came during his first term at a January 2019 Cabinet meeting. Complaining about U.S. allies’ contributions in Afghanistan, he ridiculed Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi for “constantly telling (him) he built a library in Afghanistan.” “A library! That’s like five hours of what we spend,” Trump said. “Don’t know who’s using (a library) in Afghanistan.” Since returning to office, Trump has taken a series of actions affecting libraries. Just days after his second inauguration, in 2025, the Department of Education eliminated its so-called “book ban coordinator” position. The Biden administration had appointed that coordinator in the Office for Civil Rights in 2023 to address book bans in schools and provide guidance on when removing books from school libraries might violate civil rights. The Trump administration rescinded that guidance, ending what it called “Biden’s book ban hoax.” Like fellow Republicans Richard Nixon and Reagan, Trump asked Congress every year in his first term to eliminate federal library aid. Congress rejected each president’s requests. In March 2025, however, Trump took an unprecedented

Website information

https://theconversation.com/what-the-cornell-7-sexual-assault-allegations-reveal-about-how-parents-talk-to-their-kids-about-rape-294629

Last checked: 11/2/2026, 5:51:02 PM UTC

What the Cornell 7 sexual assault allegations reveal about how parents talk to their kids about rape Skip to content Protesters listen to speakers at a rally in support of a former Cornell University student known as Jane Doe on Oct. 13, 2026, in Ithaca, N.Y. Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images There is approximately 60 years of research on campus sexual assault and shelves full of books on young people’s sexual experiences and behaviors, including their experiences with assault. More is likely to be generated following the September 2026 high-profile lawsuit by a female former Cornell University student, known as Jane Doe, who says that a group of seven Chi Phi fraternity members drugged and gang-raped her when she was a sophomore in 2024. Yet, there is very little research about the role parents have played, or should play, in educating their children about campus sexual assault prevention. I am a sociologist who spent 2024 and 2025 interviewing 56 parents across the country about this very issue. Collectively, they sent 74 children off to college between 2017 and 2024. Most parents of college-bound young people know there is a sexual assault problem on campus, but they do not see it as a problem that is likely to affect their child or children, my research shows. Relying too much on rape myths The problem of campus sexual assault is well documented. Almost 1 in 4 undergraduate women, 1 in 20 undergraduate men, and nearly 1 in 4 transgender and gender-diverse young people report experiencing sexual assault while in college. One great story in your inbox every afternoon Try our Substack Almost 11% of undergraduate men have committed sexual assault, according to one estimate. Almost 80% of campus sexual assaults go unreported. An estimated 1 in 5 women experience sexual assault while at college. Matt Burkhartt/For The Washington Post via Getty Images This disconnect can be explained by the fact that most of the parents I spoke to unconsciously rely on rape myths to understand campus sexual assault. Rape myths refer to widely held and inaccurate beliefs about rape, rapists and rape victims that serve to deny, justify or downplay sexual assault. Most parents of sons I spoke with, for instance, said that their son is not the kind of person who would jump out from behind a bush wielding a weapon and attack a young woman walking alone at night. They are probably right. Campus sexual assault is rarely perpetrated by an armed stranger. More often, it is committed by someone who knows the victim. In most campus sexual assaults, as well, the victim and the perpetrator know one another, a pattern known as date rape or acquaintance rape. Fear of false accusations While most parents are convinced that their son will never assault someone, and they rarely consider that he could be the victim of a sexual assault, my research finds that in the face of the widespread problem of campus sexual assault, parents of sons are overwhelmingly concerned that their son might be falsely accused. Out of the 38 parents of sons in my sample, 58% expressed concern that their son risked being falsely accused of sexual assault. This aligns with the myth that women lie about being assaulted for revenge or attention, among other reasons. Approximately 5% to 10% of reported sexual assaults are false accusations, according to research. One mother, who has two sons and one daughter, described “a fear that your son will be falsely accused.” “That should not be my biggest priority, but it is in my head, knowing my kid,” she said. Not thinking their daughters might be at risk Perhaps more surprisingly, my research found that many parents of daughters did not view them as being at risk of sexual violence, even when they understood the extent of the problem of campus sexual assault. Many parents of daughters responded to questions about whether they educated their child or children about sexual assault prevention by stating, “I didn’t have to worry about that.” Some explained that their daughter’s specific personality traits protected her from being victimized – especially if she was strong, outspoken, level-headed or had “street smarts.” If their daughter was religious, did not drink alcohol or use drugs before going to college, or was queer, parents felt she was not at risk of being assaulted. I spoke with one mother with a son and a daughter in college. She said she was not worried about her daughter being sexually assaulted because her daughter “will for sure fight to take care of herself. … She’s always been very strong like that.” Another mother with one daughter in college said she was not worried because her daughter doesn’t drink or want to have sex before marriage. “I feel comfortable. She is not getting into situations that could lead to something,” she said. Such thinking aligns with the false belief that women are responsible for their own sexual victimization, especially if they drink or use recreational drugs. Talking to kids about sexual assault For many parents, conversations with their children about sexuality-related topics are difficult. These conversations require that parents see their child as a sexual being or a soon-to-be sexually active person, which is, admittedly, not easy for a lot of parents. But this kind of conversation can help protect them from possible harm. First, parents could educate themselves about the reality of campus sexual assault. Parents I spoke to often used their own collegiate experiences to understand campus sexual assault. I heard people saying that if they did not know anyone who was sexually assaulted in college, it must not have been a problem on their campus. The next step is to take one’s knowledge about campus sexual assault and share it, over time, in ongoing conversations with their child or children. These sorts of conversations should go beyond phrases like “no means no” and include discussions about affirmative consent, clear communication, reading body language and power dyn

Website policies

https://theconversation.com/federal-policy-helped-widen-rural-americas-fresh-food-gap-but-a-90-year-old-law-could-help-close-it-290124

Last checked: 11/2/2026, 5:51:02 PM UTC

Federal policy helped widen rural America’s fresh food gap, but a 90-year-old law could help close it Skip to content A defunct grocery store in New Mexico in 2020. Brian van der Brug/Los Angeles Times via Getty Images When picking up groceries requires a two-hour round trip, fresh produce can become a luxury. As a food systems researcher, I see this tension firsthand: People need fresh food to be healthy, but rural regions increasingly lack access to it. Food insecurity among rural households increased from 12% in 2019 to nearly 16% in 2024, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Low income plays a part, but so too do supply chain logistics. Delivering groceries to rural areas costs distributors more, leading to higher prices and less access for rural consumers. Perishable foods – produce, meat and dairy – travel in refrigerated trucks, making them among the most expensive products to distribute. Rural routes add further costs. Small stores order less and rarely fill a truck on their own, meaning distributors either run long, multi-stop routes, or they send trucks out and back partly empty. Either way, delivery costs increase. Because of this, many national supply chains don’t prioritize rural communities. But this wasn’t always the case. Since the 1970s, deregulation, supply chain privatization and resulting concentration have skewed food distribution and left rural America behind. Today, as grocery chains grow larger, rural access to produce, meat, dairy and prepared foods is decreasing. My colleagues and I analyzed the delivery of perishable foods and found that national distributors are underserving seven states when it comes to refrigerated meat, dairy and other prepared foods. Regulation In 1935, the Motor Carrier Act required licensed trucking companies to serve specific regions, so carriers served rural and urban routes alike, ensuring that publicly financed roads were serving public needs. In exchange for a regional operating license, companies offset unprofitable rural service with the high margins they made on profitable city-to-city routes, integrating rural communities into their supply chains. One great story in your inbox every afternoon Try our Substack The following year, the Robinson-Patman Act prohibited wholesale suppliers from favoring large grocers with better prices, advertising or other exclusive deals, discouraging retailers from getting bigger to get better deals. Together, the two laws strengthened regional economies and held national distribution in check. This protected rural grocers from big grocery chains and split distribution costs between urban and rural communities. As a result, a small-town grocer in 1950 had access to much the same products as a city grocer in the same region. Deregulation Though Robinson-Patman is still on the books, enforcement waned in the 1970s as the growing influence of Chicago School economists led a shift toward deregulation. Grocery companies accelerated consolidation, gaining control of supply chains by accumulating massive buying power. In 1980, President Jimmy Carter signed a new Motor Carrier Act, removing the requirement that trucking companies serve specific regions. Once carriers could choose their routes, service to rural regions declined, as companies began to prioritize more profitable urban routes. Over time, the dismantling and neglect of these regulatory fail-safes jacked up rural food distribution costs and allowed big grocers to get even bigger. Chains gained access to wholesale discounts that independents didn’t have, affecting smaller grocers and generations of rural Americans. Long routes with many stops make rural deliveries costly for distributors. THEPALMER/E+ via Getty Images Information is power These two policy shifts were amplified in the 1990s as chain stores started to use point-of-sale data like checkout and loyalty-program records. Large companies had the resources to collect data on purchasing preferences over whole geographic regions, while local businesses did not. Chains began to use early forms of artificial intelligence to find patterns in big datasets, giving bigger companies yet another competitive advantage over small ones. As AI-powered data became more sophisticated, businesses with the means adopted new technology to improve trucking logistics that optimize for high-density, high-margin urban corridors. This has pushed independent grocers further to the margins. Mapping the gaps My colleagues and I use USDA and Department of Transportation databases and AI models to explore rural food access. We found that national distributors are underserving West Virginia, Arizona, Texas, Michigan, North Dakota, South Dakota and Montana when it comes to refrigerated meat, dairy and other prepared foods. To trace produce in particular, we focused on Wisconsin, using proprietary data from Transearch, a tool that transportation planners use to track interstate commerce. In most Wisconsin counties, national distributors delivered less than 9.2 pounds (4.2 kilograms) of leafy greens per person annually, or less than a third of the 30 to 35 pounds (14 to 16 kilograms) of leafy greens a typical American eats in a year. By contrast, urban counties around Milwaukee and Madison received 19 to 37 pounds (9 to 17 kilograms) per person annually. Interviews with grocers, distributors and food pantry volunteers across 13 northern Wisconsin counties helped illustrate why. Federal safety rules cap truckers at 11 hours behind the wheel, so a distant delivery might fit in a shift only if the truck has one stop to make. “But to be profitable, we need multiple stops on the truck,” one distributor said. “That’s why a lot of those really far-out stores, we’re not really interested in.” Working to fill this gap, independent retailers operate more than half of rural grocery stores, providing 38% of food sales. To alleviate the supply chain cost burden, some rural grocers have joined or formed distribution co-ops

Website policies

https://theconversation.com/an-ai-models-false-tip-to-philadelphia-police-reveals-how-digital-agents-can-do-as-theyre-told-and-still-cause-trouble-294228

Last checked: 11/2/2026, 5:51:02 PM UTC

An AI model’s false tip to Philadelphia police reveals how digital agents can do as they’re told and still cause trouble Skip to content An AI agent was instructed to invent and carry out sample tasks on randomly chosen webpages. It went to a Philadelphia Police Department website and submitted a made-up tip about an unsolved homicide. AP Photo/Matt Rourke An anonymous tip arrived on PhillyUnsolvedMurders.com, a website run by the Philadelphia Police Department, on July 18, 2026. “I may have information regarding this case,” it stated, and claimed the writer had seen someone matching the suspect’s description near the scene of a crime. The tip was false. The page described no suspect, and the informer was, in fact, Claude Haiku 4.5, an AI model made by San Francisco-based Anthropic. The tip was flagged as spam and never reached detectives. Anthropic found it in late September while reviewing its own test records. They alerted police on Oct. 8 and described the incident in a report they published Oct. 9. Philadelphia police disclosed it that day as well. An uncontrolled test AI companies now build “agents,” versions of their chatbots that can operate a web browser, click buttons and fill in forms on a user’s behalf. To measure how well an agent does this, companies run it through thousands of practice tasks, often live on the internet. According to Anthropic, the false tip was generated during a routine test of the model. One great story in your inbox every afternoon Try our Substack In this test, Haiku 4.5 was told to invent sample tasks on randomly chosen webpages and then carry them out. One of those pages happened to be about an unsolved Philadelphia homicide, and it had a tip form. The model’s instructions listed things it must never do: Log in, create accounts, enter personal data, make purchases and submit anything destructive. Submit a form was not on the list. So, the model wrote a plausible-sounding tip, left the optional name and contact boxes blank, and clicked submit. Anthropic says the test records indicate the tip was generated as sample content for a practice task, not to mislead police. The police tip was one of several incidents in Anthropic’s report. In another incident, a research model was supposed to practice on a copy of a government form. When the copy failed to load, it went to the real government website and submitted the form there. Other Claude models found ways around paywalls and access limits to reach data they needed. Dario Amodei, CEO of Anthropic, speaks remotely during a U.N. Security Council meeting on artificial intelligence on Sept. 23, 2026. AP Photo/Yuki Iwamura Why would an AI do this Anthropic attributes these incidents to the persistence of its software. When the model can’t finish a task the way it was told, it finds a work-around instead of stopping to ask the human who gave it its initial task. That habit comes partly from how these systems learn – much of their skill is built through trial and error. The model attempts a task many times and is rewarded when it succeeds. If the training accidentally rewards cutting corners, the model learns that cutting corners pays. Researchers call this “reward hacking.” A human student drilled only on getting the right answer, by any means necessary, might learn the same lesson. However, instructions given to an AI agent are never complete. A human worker who is told “Don’t buy anything or log in” would still know not to send police a made-up eyewitness account. But the model has no such common sense to fall back on. It treated a list of forbidden actions as the full boundary of acceptable behavior. This is also why these models “hallucinate,” making things up. AI agents are built to produce fluent, plausible text. Asked to fill a tip form with an example, the model wrote what a tip typically sounds like, with no regard for the truthfulness of its content. Should we be worried? As a law professor who studies AI governance, two concerns stand out for me: scale and control. The larger concern is scale. AI agents are moving out of the lab and into products people already use. Google’s Chrome browser now has a feature called auto browse that lets its Gemini assistant click through websites and fill in forms. Perplexity’s Comet browser and Anthropic’s Claude in Chrome extension do the same. Every task a person hands to an agent is another chance for something to go wrong. If agents carry out a million tasks a day, a mistake that happens only once in 10,000 tasks would happen about 100 times a day. Those mistakes could mean false reports that take up police time, benefits or loan applications filed with wrong information, or payments and bookings the user never approved. Anthropic itself notes that several incidents happened during ordinary use of Claude Haiku 4.5, not just testing. OpenAI has similarly reported its own agents reaching government sites in unplanned ways. AI companies can’t fully control their agents, and that may lead to more harm and to gaps in who is held liable. These types of harms could include defamation, bias, deceit and social engineering and much more. It might seem fair not to hold a company responsible for actions it couldn’t control. But in cases like these, no other person or organization clearly controls the agent either, which could leave people who were harmed by the AI agent without anyone to hold legally responsible. In my view, AI agents should be told what they may do, not just what they may not do, and anything AI companies send into the real world should be checked first. Until those safeguards are standard, any public online form, from a police tip line to a benefits application, could be receiving AI-written submissions that lack intuition and common sense. Their errors could, for example, deprive resources from real emergencies or deny benefits a person is entitled to. Meanwhile, victims of that harm may struggle to get compensation due to the lack of clarity around who h

Website information

https://theconversation.com/congress-is-freeing-trump-of-the-limited-legal-requirements-left-on-him-by-the-supreme-court-293875

Last checked: 11/2/2026, 5:51:02 PM UTC

Congress is freeing Trump of the limited legal requirements left on him by the Supreme Court Skip to content Republican members of Congress stand while Democrats keep their seats during President Donald Trump’s State of the Union address at the U.S. Capitol on Feb. 24, 2026. Alex Brandon/AP On the evening of Oct. 11, just weeks before the 2026 midterm elections, a federal judge ordered the Trump administration to stop airing taxpayer-funded television advertisements praising President Donald Trump. Yet two of the ads continued running past the court’s deadline, including during broadcasts of “60 Minutes” and “ABC World News Tonight.” The commercials in question aired in violation of a decades-old congressional prohibition against using federal money for unauthorized publicity and propaganda. Yet Republican congressional leaders did little to stop the president’s ad spending. That left outside organizations and a political candidate to challenge them in federal court. The episode illustrates a larger development in Trump’s second presidency. Across disputes involving federal spending, government agencies and military operations, the administration has asserted authority that is either restricted by law or that the legislative branch has reserved for itself. But responsibility for enforcing those limits is increasingly falling to organizations, institutions and individuals outside of the legislative branch. As a scholar of the American presidency and deliberative democracy, I pay close attention to how the nation’s chief executive exercises power and communicates with the public. One great story in your inbox every afternoon Try our Substack When presidents are allowed to break rules and disregard democratic norms without consequence, I worry that citizens will grow cynical and lose faith in the idea of self-government. As this happens, citizens may come to see the law as something that applies selectively, depending on who holds power, and lose confidence in the institutions responsible for holding their leaders accountable. They may also begin to accept the absence of accountability as a normal feature of political life, weakening the public expectations on which democratic government depends. Speaker Mike Johnson, left, leader of House Republicans, with President Donald Trump. Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images Practical immunity Congress is not the only branch of government demurring from holding the president accountable. In July 2024, the Supreme Court provided presidents sweeping protection from criminal prosecution for actions taken in office under the “core constitutional powers” of the position. In “Trump v. United States,” the court held that former presidents cannot be criminally prosecuted for actions taken under powers the Constitution gives exclusively to the president. Along with this “absolute immunity,” the justices also granted “at least presumptive immunity” for other official acts. In their decision, the court’s conservative majority extended the meaning of official conduct to the “outer perimeter” of presidential responsibilities and prohibited courts from examining a president’s motives when determining whether an act was official. The ruling only addressed criminal liability and did not curtail Congress’ constitutional authority to investigate presidential conduct, control federal spending, enact statutory restrictions and, in serious cases, pursue impeachment. Yet the Republican majority in Congress has largely declined to exercise these powers against Trump, in areas ranging from declaring war to spending money. Their acquiescence is helping create a new form of official protection, which I call “practical immunity.” In using this term, I am borrowing from the work of scholars who study abuse in the American penal system. Those thinkers argue that legal obstacles, institutional hesitation and political incentives sometimes make it difficult to hold public officials accountable, even when the law suggests there has been illegal conduct. That is what appears to be increasingly happening now with Congress, the courts and the president. When Congress stops defending its laws The television ads case illustrates the conundrum of practical immunity. In opposing the temporary restraining order, the Trump administration’s attorneys did not contest the argument asserted by the plaintiffs – Common Cause and two unions – that the expenditures violated federal appropriations law. Instead, they said the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue. They also argued that the case was moot because the advertising campaign was ending. Those arguments failed in court. Yet the administration’s defense demonstrated how elusive enforcing a law can be when Congress fails to assert its constitutionally granted role, even when the underlying legal restriction is clear. To win, a plaintiff must establish a concrete injury and persuade a judge to intervene. While this happens, the disputed conduct often continues. An ABC News story on the political ads praising President Donald Trump, who used taxpayer money to air the ads. In this case, the president went on spending public money in violation of the law. The GOP-led Congress, meanwhile, remained silent, even though its own role was being usurped. Another boundary that Trump has repeatedly tested is the so-called “power of the purse”, which is among the legislative branch’s most important constitutional responsibilities. Presidents may spend federal money only for purposes Congress has authorized. The Impoundment Control Act of 1974 protects lawmakers’ decisions against presidential efforts to ignore congressional appropriations. In September 2026, Trump’s administration canceled more than US$800 million in congressionally approved spending for immigrant services, climate change and civil rights for minority groups. The cancellation was done through a maneuver known as a pocket rescission. The administration timed its action to make it difficult for Congre

Website information

https://theconversation.com/europe/contact-us

Last checked: 11/2/2026, 5:51:02 PM UTC

Contact The Conversation Skip to content Contact us All articles in the Europe edition of The Conversation are edited by our regional and national editorial teams. If you have an editorial concern or correction, please contact the appropriate region: Africa / Australia / Canada / Canada (français) / España / France / Indonesia / New Zealand / United Kingdom / United States . If you are an academic who would like to write for The Conversation, please contact the closest region or appropriate language: Africa / Australia / Canada / Canada (français) / España / France / Indonesia / New Zealand / United Kingdom / United States . Report technical issues europe-support@theconversation.com Partner or support europe-partnerships@theconversation.com Raise privacy questions or concerns privacy@theconversation.edu.au Media or republishing europe-republish@theconversation.com Sponsoring our site or newsletter europe-sponsor@theconversation.com Postal address The Conversation Media Group Ltd The Conversation France (assoc. 1901) 14, rue Sainte-Cécile 75009 Paris Copyright © 2010–2026, The Conversation Media Group Ltd

Website information

https://theconversation.com/uk/contact-us

Last checked: 11/2/2026, 5:51:02 PM UTC

Contact The Conversation Skip to content Contact us Contact details for editorial team staff can be found on the team page . Our edition of The Conversation works chiefly with academics in the UK, Ireland and Europe. Academics wishing to pitch article ideas or those with queries from elsewhere in the world should first contact their local edition or language (Africa, Australia, Brazil, Canada, France, Indonesia, New Zealand, Spain, US), using the selector in the top left corner to switch site. For other queries: To pitch a story idea to editors: Pitch an article Technical support (login, registration) or general queries uk-support@theconversation.com Member institution support or queries uk-membership@theconversation.com New member or partner enquiries new-membership@theconversation.com Donations queries, such as stopping monthly donations uk-donate@theconversation.com Corrections or complaints uk-complaints@theconversation.com Report abuse of any kind uk-reportabuse@theconversation.com Privacy requests or questions uk-privacy@theconversation.com Media or republishing enquiries uk-republish@theconversation.com Sponsoring our site or newsletter uk-sponsor@theconversation.com Postal address The Conversation Trust (UK) Limited Shropshire House (4th Floor) 11-20 Capper Street, LONDON, WC1E 6JA Social media Like us on Facebook at ConversationUK &8203; &8203; &8203; &8203; &8203; &8203; &8203; Copyright © 2010–2026, The Conversation Trust (UK) Limited

Possible source to check

https://theconversation.com/global/who-we-are

Last checked: 11/2/2026, 5:50:08 PM UTC

We found a possible source, but could not read its page. Its contents are not included in the findings.

Possible source to check

https://theconversation.com/uk/who-we-are

Last checked: 11/2/2026, 5:50:08 PM UTC

We found a possible source, but could not read its page. Its contents are not included in the findings.

Possible source to check

https://theconversation.com/us/10-ways-we-are-different

Last checked: 11/2/2026, 5:50:08 PM UTC

We found a possible source, but could not read its page. Its contents are not included in the findings.

Possible source to check

https://theconversation.com/us/who-we-are

Last checked: 11/2/2026, 5:50:08 PM UTC

We found a possible source, but could not read its page. Its contents are not included in the findings.