Connect with us
https://tickernews.co/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/AmEx-Thought-Leaders.jpg

Ticker Views

The dangers of using floods to create social media content

Published

on

Disaster or digital spectacle? The dangers of using floods to create social media content

Samuel Cornell, UNSW Sydney and Amy Peden, UNSW Sydney

Almost 700 rescues had been carried out in New South Wales by Friday morning as
record-breaking rainfall pounds the state. Tragically, four people have died in floodwaters.

Amid the chaos, videos posted on social media show people deliberately entering or standing above swollen rivers and flooded roads. It is a pattern of dangerous behaviour that occurs frequently during natural disasters in Australia.

Filming unsafe acts for social media is not just risky for participants. It may inspire copycat behaviour, and, if things go wrong, can endanger the lives of rescuers. It’s a public health problem which requires new remedies.

Selfies in floods: a risky business

During a flood, water can be deceiving. Just 15cm of water can knock an adult off their feet or cause a car to lose traction and float. Submerged debris and contaminated water add to the dangers.

Emergency services routinely warn the public not to enter floodwaters – on foot or in vehicles. But many people ignore the warnings, including those out to create social media content.

In a startling example posted on Tiktok during the current floods, a young man stands on a mossy log which has fallen over a flooded river. The video, accompanied by dramatic music, shows swirling floodwaters surging beneath him. One wrong step, and the man could easily have drowned.

In other examples posted on Tiktok in recent days, a woman wades through murky floodwaters, and a person films as the car they are travelling in drives down a flooded road.

Similar behaviour was observed during floods in Townsville earlier this year. Residents filmed themselves diving and wading into floodwaters, and towing each other on inflatable rafts.

And during ex-Tropical Cyclone Alfred, social media was filled with images of people in Queensland surfing dangerous swells and wading in rough surf.

A worrying trend

Our research explores the links between social media and adverse health outcomes.

Selfie-related injury has become a public health concern. People are increasingly venturing off-trail, seeking out attractive but hazardous locations such as cliff edges and coastal rock platforms.

These behaviours can lead to injury and death. They can also put emergency services personnel in harm’s way. In 2021, for example, a woman fell into a swollen river on Canberra’s outskirts while trying to take a selfie with friends, prompting a police official to warn:

There is no photo or social media post that is worth risking your life to get. Any water rescue puts the lives of not only of yourself but those of emergency services personnel at risk.

Getting to grips with the problem

How should the problem be tackled? Previous research by others has recommended “no-selfie zones”, barriers, and signs as ways to prevent selfie incidents. But our research suggests these measures may not be enough.

The phenomenon of selfie-related incidents requires a public health approach. This entails addressing the behaviour through prevention, education, and other interventions such as via social media platforms.

In the latest floods, unsafe behaviour has occurred despite a series of official flood, weather and other warnings. Residents also continue to drive into floodwaters, despite repeated pleas from authorities.

Official warnings compete with – and can lose out to – more emotionally compelling, visually rich content. If the public sees other people behaving recklessly and apparently unharmed, then even clear, fact-based warnings can be ignored.

This is especially true in communities experiencing “alert-fatigue” after having gone through disasters before.

Sometimes, vague terminology in warnings means the messages don’t necessarily cut through. We’ve seen this before in relation to surf safety. Technical phrases such as “hazardous swell” don’t change behaviour if people don’t understand what they mean.

For warnings to work, they need to be clear and provide instruction – stating what the danger actually is, and what to explicitly do, or not do.

For social media users, that might mean spelling out not to go into floodwaters to capture content for social media.

We’ve also previously called on social media companies to be held more accountable for the dangerous content they publish – by flagging risky content and supporting in-app safety messaging, especially at high-risk locations or during extreme weather events.

What to do right now

If you’re in or near a flood zone, follow guidance from emergency services to keep yourself and your loved ones safe.

When it comes to using social media in an emergency:

  • stay entirely out of floodwaters, even for a quick photo
  • think before you post. Your safety is more important than your content. No post is worth risking your life
  • avoid glamourising risk. Sharing risky photos or videos can influence others to do the same, potentially with worse outcomes
  • follow official advice. Floodwaters are unpredictable. Warnings are issued for a reason
  • use your platform for good. Share verified information, support affected communities and help amplify safety messages.

As extreme weather becomes more frequent in Australia under climate change, so too will the urge to document them. But we risk turning disasters into digital spectacles – at the expense of our lives and that of rescuers.

Samuel Cornell, PhD Candidate in Public Health & Community Medicine, School of Population Health, UNSW Sydney and Amy Peden, NHMRC Research Fellow, School of Population Health and Co-founder UNSW Beach Safety Research Group, UNSW Sydney

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Ticker Views

Lunar Gateway faces delays and funding debate amid Artemis ambitions

Published

on

What’s the point of a space station around the Moon?

Berna Akcali Gur, Queen Mary University of London

The Lunar Gateway is planned space station that will orbit the Moon. It is part of the Nasa‑led Artemis programme. Artemis aims to return humans to the Moon, establishing a sustainable presence there for scientific and commercial purposes, and eventually reach Mars.

However, the modular space station now faces delays, cost concerns and potential US funding cuts. This raises a fundamental question: is an orbiting space station necessary to achieve lunar objectives, including scientific ones?

The president’s proposed 2026 budget for Nasa sought to cancel Gateway. Ultimately, push back from within the Senate led to continued funding for the lunar outpost. But debate continues among policymakers as to its value and necessity within the Artemis programme.

Cancelling Gateway would also raise deeper questions about the future of US commitment to international cooperation within Artemis. It would therefore risk eroding US influence over global partnerships that will define the future of deep space exploration.

Gateway was designed to support these ambitions by acting as a staging point for crewed and robotic missions (such as lunar rovers), as a platform for scientific research and as a testbed for technologies crucial to landing humans on Mars.

It is a multinational endeavour. Nasa is joined by four international partners, the Canadian Space Agency, the European Space Agency (Esa), the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency and the United Arab Emirates’ Mohammed Bin Rashid Space Centre.

Schematic of the Lunar Gateway.
The Lunar Gateway.
Nasa

Most components contributed by these partners have already been produced and delivered to the US for integration and testing. But the project has been beset by rising costs and persistent debates over its value.

If cancelled, the US abandonment of the most multinational component of the Artemis programme, at a time when trust in such alliances is under unprecedented strain, could be far reaching.

It will be assembled module by module, with each partner contributing components and with the possibility of additional partners joining over time.

Strategic aims

Gateway reflects a broader strategic aim of Artemis, to pursue lunar exploration through partnerships with industry and other nations, helping spread the financial cost – rather than as a sole US venture. This is particularly important amid intensifying competition – primarily with China.

China and Russia are pursuing their own multinational lunar project, a surface base called the International Lunar Research Station. Gateway could act as an important counterweight, helping reinforce US leadership at the Moon.

In its quarter-century of operation, the ISS has hosted more than 290 people from 26 countries, alongside its five international partners, including Russia. More than 4,000 experiments have been conducted in this unique laboratory.

In 2030, the ISS is due to be succeeded by separate private and national space stations in low Earth orbit. As such, Lunar Gateway could repeat the strategic, stabilising role among different nations that the ISS has played for decades.

However, it is essential to examine carefully whether Gateway’s strategic value is truly matched by its operational and financial feasibility.

It could be argued that the rest of the Artemis programme is not dependant on the lunar space station, making its rationales increasingly difficult to defend.

Some critics focus on technical issues, others say the Gateway’s original purpose has faded, while others argue that lunar missions can proceed without an orbital outpost.

Sustainable exploration

Supporters counter that the Lunar Gateway offers a critical platform for testing technology in deep space, enabling sustainable lunar exploration, fostering international cooperation and laying the groundwork for a long term human presence and economy at the Moon. The debate now centres on whether there are more effective ways to achieve these goals.

Despite uncertainties, commercial and national partners remain dedicated to delivering their commitments. Esa is supplying the International Habitation Module (IHAB) alongside refuelling and communications systems. Canada is building Gateway’s robotic arm, Canadarm3, the UAE is producing an airlock module and Japan is contributing life support systems and habitation components.

Gateway’s Halo module at a facility in Arizona operated by aerospace company Northrop Grumman.
Nasa / Josh Valcarcel

US company Northrop Grumman is responsible for developing the Habitat and Logistics Outpost (Halo), and American firm Maxar is to build the power and propulsion element (PPE). A substantial portion of this hardware has already been delivered and is undergoing integration and testing.

If the Gateway project ends, the most responsible path forward to avoid discouraging future contributors to Artemis projects would be to establish a clear plan to repurpose the hardware for other missions.

Cancellation without such a strategy risks creating a vacuum that rival coalitions, could exploit. But it could also open the door to new alternatives, potentially including one led by Esa.

Esa has reaffirmed its commitment to Gateway even if the US ultimately reconsiders its own role. For emerging space nations, access to such an outpost would help develop their capabilities in exploration. That access translates directly into geopolitical influence.

Space endeavours are expensive, risky and often difficult to justify to the public. Yet sustainable exploration beyond Earth’s orbit will require a long-term, collaborative approach rather than a series of isolated missions.

If the Gateway no longer makes technical or operational sense for the US, its benefits could still be achieved through another project.

This could be located on the lunar surface, integrated into a Mars mission or could take an entirely new form. But if the US dismisses Gateway’s value as a long term outpost without ensuring that its broader benefits are preserved, it risks missing an opportunity that will shape its long term influence in international trust, leadership and the future shape of space cooperation.The Conversation

Berna Akcali Gur, Lecturer in Outer Space Law, Queen Mary University of London

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Continue Reading

Ticker Views

South Korea introduces AI job protection legislation

South Korea is proposing laws to protect jobs from AI, balancing innovation with workers’ rights amid rising automation.

Published

on

South Korea is proposing laws to protect jobs from AI, balancing innovation with workers’ rights amid rising automation.


South Korean lawmakers are taking bold steps to protect workers from the growing impact of AI on employment. The proposed legislation aims to safeguard jobs and support workers transitioning into new roles as machines increasingly enter the workforce.

Professor Karen Sutherland of Uni SC joins Ticker to break down what these changes mean for employees and industries alike. She explains how the laws are designed to balance technological innovation with workers’ rights, and why proactive measures are crucial as AI adoption accelerates.

With major companies like Hyundai Motor introducing advanced robots, labour unions have raised concerns about fair treatment and the future of human labour. Experts say South Korea’s approach is faster and more comprehensive than similar initiatives in the United States and European Union, aiming to secure livelihoods while improving the quality of life for displaced workers.

Subscribe to never miss an episode of Ticker – https://www.youtube.com/@weareticker

#AIJobs #SouthKorea #FutureOfWork #Automation #TechPolicy #LaborRights #WorkforceInnovation #Ticker


Download the Ticker app

Continue Reading

Ticker Views

U.S. ambassador responds to NATO criticism at Munich Security Conference

At Munich Security Conference, U.S. NATO ambassador discussed defense autonomy, hybrid warfare, and transatlantic cooperation amid rising tensions.

Published

on

At Munich Security Conference, U.S. NATO ambassador discussed defense autonomy, hybrid warfare, and transatlantic cooperation amid rising tensions.


At the Munich Security Conference, the U.S. ambassador to NATO faced tough questions on global order as European allies explored greater defense autonomy amid rising geopolitical tensions. The discussion highlighted the challenges NATO faces in maintaining unity while responding to evolving threats.

The ambassador addressed criticisms directly, emphasizing the importance of transatlantic cooperation and NATO’s role in ensuring international security. European nations voiced concerns about independent defense capabilities and the impact of hybrid warfare from Russia on regional stability.

Oz Sultan from Sultan Interactive Group provides analysis.

Subscribe to never miss an episode of Ticker – https://www.youtube.com/@weareticker

#MunichSecurityConference #NATO #GlobalSecurity #DefenseAutonomy #Geopolitics #TransatlanticAlliance #HybridWarfare #USForeignPolicy


Download the Ticker app

Continue Reading

Trending Now