“Hi! This is Uzi Garcia,” the caller said. 

I was taken aback first by the caller’s distinctively young voice and then by their off-putting tone. As an intern on Capitol Hill, I routinely take calls from constituents and knew there was something different about this caller. Although I could tell there was something off about his voice, I could not pinpoint exactly what was wrong.

Then I heard him say, “I am a fourth grader at Robb Elementary School in Texas. Or at least I was until a man with an AR-15 killed 18 of my classmates, two teachers and me.” 

In February 2024, the parents of 6 victims of gun violence initiated “Shotline,” a campaign using artificial intelligence to recreate their children’s voices in calls to Congress. With the click of a button, users can send one of the six AI-generated calls to a congressional office of their choice. All calls start the same: the AI voice introduces themselves, explains their personality, describes the details of their death and then calls for stricter gun laws that may have prevented their deaths. As of Oct 28, 2024, 170,547 calls have been submitted to Congress. 

According to an interview with one of the six victims’ parents, the process for obtaining life-like audio of their deceased children was relatively easy. All it took was uploading one short audio clip of their children’s voices to the platform, Eleven Labs, an AI voice generator that supports 29 languages and accents. From there, parents typed in their messages and an AI-generated version of their child repeated it back to them. While the voices sound similar to the real kids’ voices, there is something distinctly unsettling about hearing a dead person talk to you — especially a child who was murdered in such a horrific manner. 

Extreme and powerful gun-violence advocacy campaigns are not uncommon — people still remember the “Evan” TV ad where seemingly ordinary scenes in a school setting subtly revealed signs of potential violence among students. However, Shotline crosses a new threshold as one of the first campaigns to use artificial intelligence in this way. Speaking as someone who listened to these calls and heard the voices’ disturbing and inhuman cadences, the impact of their messages cannot be understated. 

This intensity and shock have sparked debate on the use of artificial intelligence, especially to replicate those who have died. Proponents of the campaign say that advocating to Congress in conventional ways has gone nowhere. The father of Joaquin Oliver, a 17-year-old victim of the Majorie Stoneman Douglass High shooting, believes that if lawmakers won’t listen to him, maybe hearing from his son will have an impact. In his opinion, the campaign is supposed to disturb people. “Like, if you find this uncomfortable, … I think that you don’t know what uncomfortable means. I can tell you about feeling uncomfortable. When they let you know that your son, your loved one, was shot and you won’t be able to see him anymore.” 

The general public has had mixed views of the situation as well. In the comment section of one of Shotline’s posts, one user says, “What if everybody did this? It will break avenues to contact representatives when everyone does this.” Others see the Shotline project as exploiting the dead. “What you’re doing is disgusting and shameful. Putting words in dead people’s mouths, literally in their voices. Exploitation.” 

Other people are praising Shotline’s leaders for their courage and savvy in using this new tool to spur controversy and dialogue. One proponent states, “This is an amazing tool, and I’m so proud to have seen you guys here in Tulsa. You are doing great things in the name of love.” 

Along with the ethical debates, another possible ramification that is widely overlooked involves how this type of advocacy could change how congressional offices take calls. Currently, there are thousands of Congressional staff fielding constituent messages. While how many calls an office receives per day can change, my personal experience leads me to believe that offices can get up to hundreds of calls a day. Additionally, messages are only taken from real-life constituents; automated messages are rare and ignored. If AI-generated calls to Congress become more prevalent and the technology improves so that voices are indistinguishable from reality, how will Congressional staff be able to tell the difference? Petitioning your representatives is integral to political engagement, but these calls have the potential to complicate constituent engagement and representation.

AI-driven advocacy campaigns such as Shotline are a fascinating intersection of technology, ethics and activism. The chilling effect of hearing the simulated voices of deceased victims pleading for legislative action not only challenges conventional advocacy tactics but also calls into question the broader implications of AI in influencing public discourse and policymaking. As technology continues to advance, the ethical considerations surrounding its use in all areas of life will become increasingly complex. As we grapple with these dilemmas, it becomes imperative to navigate the intersection of technology and activism with sensitivity, transparency and a steadfast commitment to ethical principles.

The post AI is Resurrecting School Shooting Victims in Calls to Congress appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

Who makes up the internet?

India’s internet penetration rate stands at ~50% ‒ one of the poorest statistics in the world. Access has long been consolidated in urban, richer locations, though it is increasing in rural India due to affordable data plans and smartphones (even then, there are concerns about whether usage is being calculated appropriately). According to a 2020 UNICEF report, only 24% of Indian households have internet connections with which they can access remote learning.

Significant rural-urban and gender divides in internet access are obvious, but there is little data on the role of caste. Generally speaking, the Indian caste system consists of four castes. In order of precedence, these are the Brahmins (priests and teachers), the Kshatriyas (rulers and soldiers), the Vaisyas (merchants and traders), and the Shudras (laborers and artisans) These make up the upper castes of the Indian caste system. A fifth category falls outside the varna system and consists of those known as “untouchables” or Dalits. One 2019 study by the CSDS found that 29% of the people in India’s Dalit communities have used social media (compared to 46% in caste-privileged communities). High usage was seen only in 8% of Dalit communities, and 9% of OBC communities. Smartphone ownership too was found to be much lower. 

“Social media usage data suggests that the social media space has always been upper-caste dominated and continues to be so.”

The internet, of course, exists beyond social media. For many, a lack of access to the internet, rooted in their social and economic marginalization, hinders their ability to work, receive an education, and survive in an increasingly digitized world. India’s BharatNet program aims to connect 250,000 gram panchayats (village level grassroots organizations that make up the local self-governance system in India) via optical fiber by 2023, but the implementation of this program has been slow. Aditi Agrawal from MediaNama writes, “1,07,260 gram panchayats are still not connected and if work continues at the pace it did in January-August 2020, the project would take 6 years and 8 months to complete.”

How can narratives about the democratizing power of the internet be considered true when massive caste-related access gaps still exist? These statistics ‒ and the ones we don’t see ‒ reiterate the fact that social dynamics don’t cease to exist on the internet. In fact, the internet becomes an extension of our physical lives right from the moment of access. 

Even where there there is access, there is inequality

This July, Dilip Mandal, an expert on media and sociology, wrote about how India’s subaltern ‒ Dalits, Adivasis, Muslims, and other backward classes ‒ have not been able to challenge oppressive powers as effectively as once thought possible. This is attributed to the replication of social hierarchies ‒ the domination of privileged castes ‒ in the digital space. The internet is widely considered to be a public sphere, a realm of politics where strangers come together to engage in the free exchange of ideas. However, Mandal rightly asserts that India’s public sphere itself is hegemonic and distorted thus resulting in a similarly distorted online realm.

Here are the key highlights from a 2019 Oxfam and Newslaundry report on the representation of people from different caste groups in Indian media:

• Of the 121 newsroom leadership positions, 106 are occupied by journalists from the upper castes and none by those belonging to the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes. 
• Three out of every four anchors of flagship debates are upper caste. Not one is Dalit, Adivasi, or OBC. 
• For over 70% of their flagship debate shows, news channels draw the majority of the panelists from the upper castes. 
• No more than 5% of all articles in English newspapers are written by Dalits and Adivasis. Hindi newspapers fare slightly better at around 10%. 
• Over half of those writing on issues related to caste in Hindi and English newspapers are upper caste. 
• Around 72% of bylined articles on news websites are written by people from the upper castes. 
• Only 10 of the 972 articles featured on the cover pages of the 12 magazines under study are about issues related to caste.

The threat of the Internet

The internet has brought with it a new set of potential issues, including the looming threat of state surveillance, privacy concerns, and the seemingly inevitable rise of technology-enabled state power. These are novel concerns for many and their rise terrifies me, but that is partly because my privilege has shielded me from an experience of life where surveillance is the norm. This is one of the many functions of caste. These concerns are only heightened under the current hyper-nationalist government.

Surveillance is a part of the process through which the dominant castes uphold their power over the oppressed castes. Privacy is the privilege of the oppressors, as has been reiterated by many Dalit-Bahujan writers and activists.

Examples of tech’s rising role in enforcing the caste system are plenty: GPS-enabled trackers tagged on Swachh Bharat (translation: Clean India) sanitation workers, the leakage of Aadhaar numbers of scheduled caste students by the Andhra Pradesh government website and the broader concern of caste-based geolocation, the surveillance and resulting criminalization of Dalits’ rights defenders, the internet shutdown in Saharanpur after a fatal caste atrocity, COVID-related personal data leaks that reveal people’s names and caste locations and hence carry the potential for abuse, the many instances of the exploitation of personal wants, needs and identity by big tech and many more instances.

This violence and violation, alongside political harassment, hyper-nationalism and the disproportionate representation of dominant castes on the internet, are a grave cause of concern, and conversations surrounding it deserve more space in the mainstream.

Mulling on social media

Recently, as #DalitLivesMatter trended online in light of caste-based violence in Hathras and systemic oppression, I wondered whether my opinion — as a woman from a dominant caste — urgently required space on social media. My conclusion was that it didn’t. 

Caste-privileged proclamations of allyship overwhelm conversations, leverage virality, and are celebrated — despite, or perhaps due to, their mediocrity. All of what is said has already been said before by people from Dalit and Bahujan communities, and I feel acutely aware of having taken up space similarly, now and in the past. 

Our proclamations are transient and fleeting, yet we are convinced that our opinions are entitled to space. This is a function of both what Dilip Mandal called replicated social hierarchies as well as the neoliberal rooting of Instagram and the social currency it demands.

Anti-caste activism and identity

Professor Mandal said that his once-held assumption that social media will allow India’s voiceless underclass to express themselves has been proven both right and wrong. The wrong is illustrated above ‒ but the right holds immense power.

Tejas Harad, journalist and founder of The Satyashodhak, writes about the sense of community that Twitter has given Dalit youngsters, and how “social media was, finally, a platform where lower-caste individuals could come together to overcome geographic and cultural boundaries”.

Even six years ago, Sunil Gangavane, working on PUKAR’s research on caste identities on social media, spoke of how students in urban cities are more likely to seek out caste-related communities online than to talk about caste in physical spaces. 

There is the power of archiving and sharing, through platforms and blogs like RTI, Velivada, and Dalit Camera. There is art, music, community, and discourse, and the best memes on the internet. The internet has aided this process of creativity, self-empowerment, solidarity and emancipation.

While the internet is not inherently democratic, and privacy concerns are rising, it’s up to all of us ‒ technologists, researchers, allies, students, and people who love️ the internet ‒ to work collaboratively to create a healthier cyberspace that prioritizes the safety of vulnerable communities. This, especially in the Indian context, requires a critical anti-caste lens on all of the things that make up our digital realities. 

It is imperative to think about ‒ and act on ‒ how systems of oppression enter and influence this space we call home. We must remember that the internet is what we make of it ‒ it has the potential to reproduce caste dynamics, exacerbate them, or challenge them.

The post Understanding Caste in the Indian Cyberspace appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

Though the Vice President of the United States may appear to have little power, the President’s second-in-command plays a larger role than assumed, especially in matters of foreign policy. Up until the late 1970s, vice presidents were largely figureheads, but President Jimmy Carter changed this at the beginning of his term by expanding the role of Vice President Walter Mondale, giving him the authority to affect policy and moving his office into the White House. Since then, successors to the vice-presidential office have continued to take on responsibility and expand the role’s importance.

The exact tasks of a vice president are dependent on the wishes of the president they serve, but recent vice presidents have become more hands-on in foreign affairs, traveling the world as representatives of the United States and advising the president on foreign policy. Because of their proximity to the president and their ability to influence foreign affairs, a vice-presidential candidate’s opinions on world politics should not be overlooked. As voters prepare to head to voting booths in November and as others begin sending in their mail-in ballots, they should consider the foreign policy agendas of each vice presidential candidate. Glimpse from the Globe will break down the foreign policy positions of the 2020 vice-presidential candidates, Vice President Mike Pence and California Senator Kamala Harris.

China

Over the last decade, China has rapidly expanded its economic power and global influence to become one of the world’s superpowers, arguably on the same level as the United States. China’s status, combined with its communist, one-party political system, has long worried U.S. leaders, who fear the country is getting too aggressive and powerful. With the steady breakdown of relationships between China and the United States ‒ the trade war started by President Trump and rising anti-China sentiments since the beginning of the coronavirus pandemic ‒  the United States’ dealings with China moving forward will greatly differ depending on which party wins the presidential election. 

Pence has long been critical of China, accusing the country of meddling in U.S. elections in 2018 and denouncing its economic aggression, human rights violations, and intellectual property theft in a speech in late 2019. In this same speech, he also declared his support for the Hong Kong protestors. China is not too fond of Pence either, as they responded to Pence’s denouncements by stating that the Vice President lied and needed to focus on fixing issues within the United States. As vice president, he has been supportive of sanctions against Chinese companies and high-ranking government officials, and would likely maintain this hardline stance should he keep his position. 

Senator Harris has similarly expressed that U.S. foreign policy toward China should consider its human rights record. According to Harris, the surveillance and repression of Chinese citizens as well as the reeducation camps for the Uighur Muslims were abysmal infringements on human rights. Further, she explained that the United States should stand with the people of Hong Kong, following China’s disrespect of Hong Kong’s autonomy and democracy. While Harris agrees with Pence on the human rights issues, they differ in regard to the trade war. In 2018 she wrote a letter urging the Trump administration to reconsider increasing tariffs and reiterated this view in the vice presidential debate, where she noted that the trade war has cost the U.S. economy hundreds of thousands of jobs and raised the prices of consumer goods in the United States.

North Korea

U.S. relations with North Korea have remained largely static over the past decades, with the U.S. failing to curb North Korean nuclear proliferation. As time passes and North Korea’s stockpile of missiles and nuclear weapons grows, the regime is likely to grow more emboldened, and the influence the United States has on the country will decrease. Both U.S. political parties have made several attempts to negotiate with North Korea and promote its denuclearization, yet have so far been unsuccessful, making this a notable issue in U.S. foreign policy.

Pence has an unyielding attitude towards North Korea, differing from President Trump’s repeated attempts at establishing a friendly relationship with Kim Jong Un. After stating in 2018 that North Korea had not made any concrete steps toward ending its nuclear weapons program, he warned that the situation could “only end like the Libyan model if Kim Jong Un doesn’t make a deal.” In the early 2000s, Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi gave up his nuclear arms program for sanctions relief but was later killed and overthrown by U.S.-supported rebels. North Korea has repeatedly cited Libya as an example of why it needs nuclear weapons, and took Pence’s words as a threat, to which he responded with: “It’s more of a fact.” Pence believes that continuing to pressure North Korea through sanctions will eventually force them to back down and lead to total denuclearization.

Harris also believes in a more firm stance towards North Korea and has openly criticized Trump’s engagement with North Korea, explaining that by prioritizing photo opportunities with Kim Jong Un and ending military operations with South Korea, he has compromised the ability of the United States to keep tabs on North Korea’s nuclear weapons program. Unlike Pence, she has conceded that appealing for complete denuclearization is unlikely to end in success but believes that a strategy aimed at cooperation with North Korea, such as by maintaining friendly relations and offering targeted sanctions relief for verifiable actions to scale back the nuclear program, is the best way forward.

Israel and Palestine

The territorial dispute that Israel and Palestine have been engaged in since the mid-20th century has continued to be violent. Israel in particular has grown more aggressive over the past few years, and though President Trump drafted a new plan for a two-state solution, he did so without input from Palestinian leaders and has been vocal about his support for Israel. Tensions in the region continue to rise.

Pence has always been open about his pro-Israel views, which stem from his religious beliefs as an evangelical Christian. The Vice President was a key supporter of President Trump’s controversial decision in 2017 to reverse almost 70 years of foreign policy and recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, an action that triggered criticism from around the world. Pence has also publicly backed Trump’s decision to cut funding for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees (UNRWA) by over 50%, causing the organization to scramble for funds to continue providing its vital services.

Despite Senator Harris claiming she would offer a two-state solution and work toward repairing U.S. relationships with Palestine, her past suggests that her involvement would also lead to pro-Israel outcomes. Her very first foreign policy vote in the Senate in 2017 was to condemn a United Nations resolution that called for Israel to stop expanding its illegal settlements in the occupied West Bank. Speaking for a lobbying group that pushes for better U.S.-Israel relations, she endorsed Israel’s right to defend itself in 2019. Furthermore, she has been a fond supporter of the Jewish National Fund since her childhood, an organization that is known to have helped push out Palestinians in the 1940s, also ensuring 750,000 of the refugees could not return. This is very different from presidential candidate Biden, who opposes Israel’s plans to continue annexing Palestinian territory.

Iran

President Trump started off U.S.-Iran relations in 2020 with a bang by ordering the successful execution of Iranian general Qasem Soleimani. This move resulted in retaliation in the form of missiles fired at bases housing U.S. troops, but there were no casualties and the situation did not escalate further. Nevertheless, dealings between the two countries remain strained, and the United States remains committed to ensuring that Iran does not develop nuclear capabilities.

In terms of U.S. foreign policy with Iran, Pence believes in a policy of deterrent aggressiveness towards Iran and was very vocal about his approval of President Trump’s decision to launch the airstrike that killed Iran’s top military general, Qassam Soleimani, in early January. Following the airstrike, Pence stated that, though he wants to end conflict in the region, he has no desire to remove the U.S.’s military presence from the area in case they are needed to settle other disputes in the future. The U.S. pulled out of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) deal in 2018 under the Trump Administration. The JCPOA was an agreement to lift sanctions on Iran, should they comply with international nuclear standards. Pence has urged European nations to pull out of the deal too, describing Iran as a ‘murderous revolutionary regime’.

Harris has also outlined that she does not condone Iran’s nuclear weapons program. On the other hand, she has made clear that the Biden administration would rejoin the (JCPOA) deal that Trump withdrew from, so long as Iran verifiably complied. She is a firm believer that an allied approach through the UN Security Council is the right plan of action, both to strengthen the nuclear deal and to push back against Iran’s destabilizing actions in the region. In response to airstrikes, Harris asserted that Trump’s reckless approach has caused nothing but further escalation over the past two years. 

Climate Change

As a world leader and the second largest contributor to climate change, any action (or inaction) by the United States can influence the effectiveness of efforts to counter climate change. As the time the world has to reverse global warming passes by, the winner of the presidential election will determine whether or not the United States leads, or refutes, the fight against climate change.

Pence has been a climate change denialist long before becoming Trump’s running mate. As the host of his own radio show in the early 2000’s, Pence claimed that global warming was a ‘myth,’ and that temperatures were warmer 50 years ago. As an Indiana congressman, Pence supported President George W. Bush’s abandonment of the Kyoto Protocol, a pledge by nations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. He also voted against limiting those emissions twice. As the governor of Indiana, he refused to implement Obama’s Clean Power Plan in 2015. During his time as vice president, Pence worked with Trump to reverse environmental protection rules put in place by the Obama administration, including the hydraulic fracking rule, the methane rule, the stream buffer rule, the Clean Power Plan, and the Paris Climate Accord. While CO2 emissions fell 11% during the Obama Administration, they fell about 0.5% during Trump’s first three years in office. In this way, Pence’s actions have benefitted companies involved in the non-renewable energy sector such as coal, oil, and gas, therefore receiving political support from those tied to the sector.

There is no doubt that Kamala Harris has been a vigorous advocate for the fight against climate change. She has frequently confronted the fossil fuel industry on fracking as California Attorney General, and is vocal about holding polluters accountable. She created an environmental justice unit as San Francisco District Attorney. During her presidential campaign, she pledged not to accept any fossil fuel money, to rejoin the Paris Climate Agreement, and to invest $10 trillion in public and private funding to save the worst climate impacts, through her drafting of the Climate Plan. More importantly, Harris drafted the Climate Equity Act with Rep. Ocasio Cortez, as part of the Green New Deal. This bill aims for environmental legislation to be judged by the impact on minority communities. Harris strongly supports the Green New Deal but has had to compromise her position on it due to her partnership with Biden. The need to appeal to voters in swing states where environmentally damaging fracking takes place has meant that both Harris and Biden have backtracked on their outright calls to ban the fracking industry. 

To Conclude

Interestingly, the foreign policy goals of the two vice presidential candidates do not stray too far away from each other, disregarding climate change. However, Harris’ approach starkly contrasts to the rash and whimsical Trump administration. Harris has placed a much greater emphasis on internationalism, outlining the U.S.’ need for dependable relationships to restore its lost credibility and the liberal world order. She seeks a more comprehensive and allied approach on issues of global security, as seen through her aims to rejoin the JCPOA and the Paris Climate Agreement. Pence’s arguments on foreign policy during the vice presidential debate were that Trump had successfully limited ISIS and carried out air raids in Iran, as well as helped move the American embassy in Israel to Jerusalem. While Pence has been essential in buoying relationships with allies through a less erratic approach than his President, he was a key driver of the criticism and indictment of China and Venezuela.

Without a doubt, the role of the vice president has grown in importance in recent presidential terms, with the nominations of running mates having the power to swing elections or appeal to a key demographic. The efforts of both candidates at the debate stage having a tangible effect on the ballot box remain to be seen, although polls following the debate indicate that Harris’s favorability ratings increased by 7%, while Pence’s stayed the same. 

With Pence being the more composed counterpart to Trump, Harris widening Biden’s target demographic massively, and both Trump and Biden being of higher risk groups for COVID, it is undoubtable that the elected vice president will carry a dominant role in determining foreign policies.

The post U.S. Foreign Policy: Pence vs. Harris appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.