Elsa B. Kania and John Costello for the Center for a New American Security: China is positioning itself as a powerhouse in quantum science. Within the past several years, Chinese researchers have achieved a track record of consistent advances in basic research and in the development of quantum technologies, including quantum cryptography, communications, and computing, as well as reports of progress in quantum radar, sensing, imaging, metrology, and navigation. Their breakthroughs demonstrate the successes of a long-term research agenda that has dedicated extensive funding to this domain while actively cultivating top talent. China’s rise as a powerhouse in quantum science was displayed to the world with the August 2016 launch of the world’s first quantum satellite, Micius (or Mozi). Since then, China’s launch of new national “megaprojects” in quantum communications and computing reflect the continued prioritization of these technologies.
At the highest levels, China’s leaders recognize the strategic potential of quantum science and technology to enhance economic and military dimensions of national power. These quantum ambitions are intertwined with China’s national strategic objective to become a science and technology superpower. Rather than relying primarily on the “absorption” of foreign technologies in its pursuit of indigenous innovation, China instead intends to achieve truly disruptive, even “radical” innovation in strategic emerging technologies, including biotechnology and artificial intelligence. As China advances a national strategy for military-civil fusion (or “civil-military integration,”) these critical technologies also will be leveraged for a range of defense applications. While international collaborations can be integral to advancing global scientific progress, the sensitivity and strategic objectives associated with these technologies in China could, at worst, undermine such engagements, perhaps resulting in such future “made in China” innovation being restricted to China.
Authoritarians work “offshore”
Ben Judah and Nate Sibley for the Hudson Institute: The dismantling of totalitarian regimes across Eurasia allowed their elites to become individual financial actors for the first time. This dovetailed with an aggressive expansion of American professional services into these territories. Whereas in the 1960s it was the Soviet state seeking Eurodollars, by the late 1990s, any Eurasian power brokers worth their salt were personally seeking access to Western professional services. The consequences of this access to the globalized economy have arguably been vastly more empowering to political actors hostile to the United States than any other development of the late 20th century.
But why? Since the Bretton Woods system collapsed, one financial trend has been constant: the aggressive expansion of a shadow financial system referred to collectively as “offshore.” On the surface, this is a fiendishly complex interlocking web of anonymously owned companies and accounts, legally located in secretive jurisdictions that allow them to circumvent the regulatory and taxation systems of conventional jurisdictions. Yet lifting the veil of corporate secrecy reveals a simple principle: Offshore is actually a set of professional services that specialize in enabling businesses and individuals to effectively retreat from legal, regulatory, and public scrutiny, empowering them vis-a-vis those who have remained “onshore” without access to such services. This system is how a business run, staffed, operating, and earning its profits in the United States can claim that it is in fact located in another country altogether, despite having no physical presence there. …
The increasing capacity of Russia, China, and even the Gulf States to interfere in Western political systems, and the eruption of protest movements in countries as varied as Malaysia, Ukraine, Libya, Egypt, and Pakistan, are all fueled by the power that the offshore system has bestowed upon authoritarian elites — and how they have played, abused, or mismanaged their hand. Money may not explain everything — but it does explain rather a lot.
Yes, social media giants are biased
Mark Jamison for AEIdeas: Science published a 2014 study that showed that conservatives on Facebook were more likely to see liberal-oriented items in their newsfeeds than liberals were to see conservative-oriented items. A study published in the Proceedings of the 3rd Annual ACM Web Science Conference showed for Yahoo, in a period spanning 2011–12, “that the more right-leaning a query it is, the more negative sentiments can be found in its search results.”
A study published in the Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing examined search results on Twitter. Regarding the 2016 presidential race between Secretary Hillary Clinton and then-candidate Donald Trump, the study found that most tweets were negative because Republicans tweeted about Clinton more than Democrats did, and Democrats tweeted about Trump more than Republicans did. But when people searched for tweets about candidates, Twitter’s ranking system affected the extent to which people found negative content. More specifically, Twitter’s “ranking system directed the search results for Hillary Clinton towards the perspective of her own party. For Donald Trump the situation is the opposite. … So, while the ranking system mitigated the opposite bias in the search results for Hillary Clinton, it enhanced it for Donald Trump.” … but people should proceed with caution. New regulations intended to address these issues are likely to harm consumers because regulations often impede competition.
Compiled by Joseph Lawler from reports published by various think tanks.
