Connect with us

Tech

The Most Powerful Politics Influencers Barely Post About Politics

Published

on

The Most Powerful Politics Influencers Barely Post About Politics


Donald Trump’s appearances on the podcasts of Joe Rogan and Theo Von, among others, were seen by many as a key part of securing his second term in office.

But while Trump was speculating about alien life on Mars with Rogan, he had a team of acolytes appearing on dozens, if not hundreds, of much smaller niche podcasts hosted by right-wing content creators who typically don’t talk about politics.

This is how, just six days before the election, Kash Patel, the man now struggling to run the FBI, ended up appearing on the Deplorable Discussions livestream, a fringe, QAnon-infused show hosted on a platform called Pilled.

“The Deep State exists,” Patel told the audience. “It’s a Democratic-Republican uniparty swamp monster machine.”

At the time, there was no hard evidence behind an idea the Trump campaign appeared to understand instinctively: Social media creators, especially those who do not typically speak about politics, have an extraordinary ability to sway their audiences.

Now we have that evidence.

A new report, shared exclusively with WIRED and published today by researchers from Columbia and Harvard, is a first-of-its-kind study designed to measure the impact influencers and online creators can have on their audiences.

The study was conducted with 4,716 Americans aged between 18 and 45, most of whom were randomly assigned a list of progressive content creators to follow. Over the course of five months, from August to December 2024, these creators produced nonpartisan content designed to educate followers rather than explicitly advocate for a specific political viewpoint.

The results showed that exposure to these progressive-minded creators not only increased general political knowledge, but also shifted followers’ policy and partisan views to the left.

In contrast, a placebo group that was not assigned any creators to follow but was allowed to scroll social media as normal “showed significant rightward movement,” which researchers said was related to the right-leaning nature of social media networks.

For the study’s authors, and experts who have reviewed the research, the findings confirm that not only are influencers now potentially more powerful than traditional media, but content creators who rarely share political content may be the most powerful of all.

“The research concretizes what a lot of people have been hypothesizing, which is that content creators are a powerful force in politics, and they are absolutely going to play a big role in the 2026 midterms, and they will play an even bigger role in the 2028 elections,” says Samuel Woolley, an associate professor at the University of Pittsburgh who studies digital propaganda and who reviewed the research.

The Politics Paradox

As well as trying to prove that social media influencers can shape public opinion, the researchers also wanted to find out if those creators were more or less influential when their content is more overtly political.

To do this, the researchers randomly assigned the study’s participants a list of creators to follow, with some being assigned creators who mainly post about political issues, while others were assigned creators who are predominantly apolitical in their output.



Source link

Tech

IT Sustainability Think Tank: How IT sustainability entered the mandate era during 2025 | Computer Weekly

Published

on

IT Sustainability Think Tank: How IT sustainability entered the mandate era during 2025 | Computer Weekly


As the calendar turns the final pages on 2025, the information technology sector stands at a critical juncture regarding its environmental commitments. This year was not marked by technological breakthroughs solving decarbonisation, but by the decisive maturation of sustainability from a strategic differentiator into an operational and regulatory imperative.

This transition involved a painful reckoning with data complexity, supply chain reality, and the sheer energy appetite of modern computing, driven primarily by the rapid proliferation of artificial intelligence (AI).

We entered 2025 with goals framed by aspiration; we exit under the binding mandate of actuality. The central shift is profound: IT sustainability is no longer a parallel environmental, social and governance (ESG) initiative.

It has become deeply intertwined with core business continuity, geopolitical supply chain risk, and mandatory financial disclosure. While this shift signals progress, momentum is driven more by necessity and the threat of liability than by shared ethical commitment.

The conversation evolves from aspirational to accountable

The most profound shift over the past year has been the forced elevation of the sustainability dialogue directly onto the executive committee’s core risk portfolio. This movement is not voluntary; it is driven by impending regulation and the sobering realisation that environmental failure now carries direct, auditable financial penalties and board-level liability.

Only a year ago, discussions circled around unquantifiable reputational benefits. Today, the lexicon is dominated by acronyms signalling mandatory compliance: CSDDD, CSRD, and the tightening of the SBTi Net-Zero Standard V2. These frameworks compel executives to move past narratives and confront the granular, auditable data attached to every asset, vendor, and cloud usage.

For the CIO, this manifests in two critical areas. First, energy efficiency is decisively reframed as a cost of doing business, crucial for operational expenditure control amid volatile global energy markets. Second, the sudden energy demand of generative AI has triggered a rapid, internal debate on responsible compute architecture.

Leaders are increasingly compelled to justify AI investment not solely on traditional ROI, but via a nascent “return on compute” model that necessarily integrates and accounts for carbon expenditure. This makes the environmental cost of IT an integrated input in the total cost of ownership calculation, rather than a polite footnote.

Despite this high-level engagement, progress remains complicated. The IT function often lacks the authority to enforce change across complex internal silos, and the necessary budget and risk tolerance for truly transformative shifts remain stubbornly limited.

Genuine progress where the green shoots are taking hold

Despite systemic inertia, 2025 delivered solid, tangible progress in certain operational domains, offering a partial blueprint for future net-zero efforts. Our confidence is bolstered by three examples, though it is crucial to understand that wide-scale adoption across the average enterprise remains nascent and often confined to pilot programs:

1. Decoupling cloud growth from carbon: Hyperscale cloud providers have largely won the battle for renewable energy procurement. The next frontier — optimising physical operations — has seen enterprise engagement. We saw accelerated adoption of advanced liquid cooling technologies (still primarily concentrated in hyperscale environments, but critical for future AI scaling). Enterprises optimising workloads for low-carbon regions and utilising serverless architectures successfully decoupled rapid cloud expansion from a proportional rise in emissions. This success belongs predominantly to the hyperscalers, and enterprise optimisation remains an ongoing campaign.

2. Maturing the circular IT model (As-a-Service): The year 2025 saw the Managed Device-as-a-Service (MDaaS) model transition into a critical environmental enabler. By outsourcing the entire device lifecycle, enterprises commit practically to refurbishment and robust reverse logistics. Successful enterprises leverage these contracts to guarantee asset re-entry into the value chain via certified refurbishment, drastically reducing e-waste. The caveats are two-fold: MDaaS adoption is far from universal, and the verification of these circular chains still lacks necessary, robust third-party scrutiny.

3. The nascent rise of green software engineering: The formal emergence of green software engineering (GSE) is perhaps the most encouraging development. For too long, the environmental focus was only on hardware. This year, organisations began measuring code energy consumption — optimising algorithms and refactoring applications to reduce reliance on resource-intensive computing.

An important development this year was the publication of the W3C Web Sustainability Guidelines (WSG) Draft Note. Developed through a global, collaborative effort — in which I was pleased to participate — the guidelines offer a structured and internationally relevant set of best practices for reducing the environmental footprint of web products and services. While the scope focuses specifically on the web rather than the full breadth of enterprise IT, the Draft Note nonetheless represents a significant step forward for the industry.

The persistent gaps undermining net-zero momentum

For all the genuine acceleration, 2025 was equally defined by two persistent, critical gaps that threaten to derail net-zero pathways and demand urgent attention.

1. The Scope 3 emissions chasm: The most pervasive and frustrating gap remains the measurement and meaningful reduction of Scope 3 emissions, particularly from purchased goods and downstream asset end-of-life.

Despite regulatory urgency, the vast majority of enterprises still rely on highly aggregated, industry-average supplier data (spend-based or activity-based), which is neither auditable nor sufficient for mandatory disclosure. The necessary mechanism — detailed, granular product carbon footprints (PCF) provided by every vendor — is simply not available at scale or with sufficient fidelity.

The problem persists because it requires collaboration across complex, often proprietary global supply chains. Suppliers are reticent to disclose granular data, citing competitive concerns, while buyers lack the leverage to mandate it. The result is a ‘Scope 3 plateau’: targets are set, but underlying emissions remain stubbornly high, creating a significant credibility risk. We are still largely measuring a reflection, not the reality.

2. The generative AI energy debt: While AI is a powerful tool for sustainability optimisation, the immediate, unmanaged energy demand of Large Language Models (LLMs) represents a profound and growing gap. The speed of AI adoption, combined with the inherently expensive High-Performance Computing (HPC) required, creates an “energy debt” that offsets hard-won gains elsewhere.

The challenge is governance. Enterprises are deploying AI solutions without robust, mandatory policies on model selection, inference efficiency, or resource decommissioning. Crucially, most organisations remain focused on achieving initial ROI metrics, relegating energy efficiency to an optional performance tweak. Failure to enforce a framework for ‘responsible compute’ risks the transformative power of AI being negated by its own expanding environmental impact. This is the single greatest risk to the IT sector’s net-zero journey.

Strategic priorities for 2026 and beyond

As the IT Sustainability Think Tank looks towards 2026, the focus must shift from identifying the problem to systematically closing the remaining gaps with institutional discipline. We must treat these priorities as non-negotiable elements of future business resilience:

  1. Mandate data granularity for Scope 3: Leverage procurement influence to force supplier compliance on verifiable Product Carbon Footprints (PCF). The mandate must be non-negotiable, enforced with clear vendor scorecards and contractual requirements.
  2. Institutionalise green software engineering: Invest heavily in training and tooling to embed energy efficiency into the software development lifecycle (SDLC). Software architecture must be treated with the same environmental scrutiny as data centre cooling, making efficiency an audited requirement.
  3. Govern the AI energy cost: Implement a Responsible AI framework that includes mandatory energy consumption metrics and resource allocation policies for all Generative AI deployments.

The year 2025 was when IT sustainability moved into the board’s audit file. Next year must be the year we finally gather the granular data, enforce the necessary discipline, and manage the rapidly growing energy appetite of our own invention. The time for aspirational statements is definitively over; the urgent task now is to move these nascent efforts into full, verifiable accountability.



Source link

Continue Reading

Tech

The Best Food Gifts for Every Type of Foodie

Published

on

The Best Food Gifts for Every Type of Foodie



From tinned fish to baked goodies, you can deliver the best-tasting treats to their door—even if you don’t live close by.



Source link

Continue Reading

Tech

Apple Engineers Are Inspecting Bacon Packaging to Help Level Up US Manufacturers

Published

on

Apple Engineers Are Inspecting Bacon Packaging to Help Level Up US Manufacturers


Fouch knew automated sensors could help by, for example, identifying the environmental culprits of the hole-punching issues, but with so many potential options to try he didn’t know where to start. “The worst thing you can do, in a smaller business especially, is muddle through pilot purgatory, hoping to find a viable product,” he says. “When someone else has done it before, they know the viable path, and they can save you the time and the expense.”

That’s just what three directors and managers from Apple’s engineering and operations teams offered when Fouch and Quinn Shanahan, who oversees Polygon’s medical device production and special products, visited the manufacturing academy in October and November, respectively. Over what Fouch estimates was five hours, the Apple employees evaluated Polygon’s challenges and applied the industrial engineering equation of Little’s Law—which can identify capacity bottlenecks—to devise solutions.

The result was a detailed strategy mapping out sensors and software that could affordably track production and alert about anomalies. Polygon can now count the number of passes the tube makes through the grinder, and it will soon be able to understand whether an overheated motor or other factors could explain the botched hole punching, Shanahan says.

If all goes as planned, Polygon will have implemented a working system to address its most significant bottlenecks for no more than $50,000 compared to the $500,000 that an automation consultancy may have charged, according to Fouch. The Apple team is working on visiting Polygon to talk through other upgrades. “They have walked these paths before,” Fouch says. “Without their help, it’s going to take us much longer.”

Apple’s Herrera says giving small manufacturers a sense of the benefits of automation and other technologies could eventually lead them to work with consultants and invest in more expensive systems.

Two other academy participants tell WIRED that they have not received extensive assistance from Apple—Herrera says it comes down to which companies have prepared a “problem statement” that Apple can help with—but they are working to bring what they learned to their factories. Jack Kosloski, a project engineer at Blue Lake, a plastic-free packaging startup, says it was eye-opening for him to hear about the depth of Apple’s product testing.



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending