The Rumble - Volume 3 - Issue 2

THE

Isue 02 olume V 3

RUM BLE Pr Ladies’ Coleg Melbourne Studen Neperwsa

In March 1965, the first US ground troops landed in Vietnam to fight on the side of South Vietnam in the Vietnam War. Not only was this a significant turning point in the Cold War, it was also the first war to be televised. Numerous researchers have studied the effect of this publicity on American public opinion, policies and ultimately the outcome of the war.

Although it is near impossible to quantify the influence of television over public opinion, there is no denying that it had an impact on the war-related information that people received. In February 2022, Russian troops crossed over into Ukraine, marking the start of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the largest conflict Europe has seen since World War II. While it is not the first armed conflict to take place in the age of social media, it is the one that has garnered the most attention. Defence forces around the world have long been aware of the potential of media in warfare, as shown by the Vietnam War. Through the Ukrainian Crisis, however, this potential has been realised on a new, modern scale by both Russia and Ukraine, other foreign powers and even civilians. Social media has been used to disseminate everything from disinformation and recipes for Molotov cocktails to heart-wrenching stories and messages of solidarity. But who has this really benefited?

The digital battlefield Social media has never been regarded as a particularly reliable source of information and, unsurprisingly, it has become somewhat of a digital battlefield. Heated arguments are not new on social media and this has only intensified during the Ukrainian Crisis, which is to be expected, given the extreme circumstances. It is also not new for governments to use social media to attempt to influence citizens.

During the Ukrainian Crisis, however, certain government bodies have become more direct in their online engagements. This can be seen in a Twitter exchange between the Russian and German embassies in South Africa. On 5 March, the Russian embassy wrote on Twitter, “Dear subscribers, we have received a great number of letters of solidarity from South Africans, both individuals and organizations. We appreciate your support and glad you decided to stand with us today, when Russia, like 80 years ago, is fighting Nazism in Ukraine!”.

The German embassy was quick to respond, saying, “Sorry, but we can’t stay silent on this one, it’s just far too cynical. What [Russia] is doing in [Ukraine] is slaughtering innocent children, women and men for its own gain. It's definitely not “fighting Nazism”. Shame on anyone who’s falling for this. (Sadly, we're kinda experts on Nazism.)”.

The digital battlefield The argument rapidly began to spiral, with the Russian embassy in the UK joining the Twitter-fray by sarcastically calling the Germans “experts”, who failed to “persuade Ukraine to implement the Minsk Agreements” which aimed to end the war in the Donbas region in 2014. This exchange is only one example of foreign powers using social media to justify certain actions or to win support in this digital information battle. In some cases, however, it has gone beyond snide remarks. Such was the case in mid-March when a video featuring President Zelenskyy, allegedly calling for a Ukrainian surrender, began circulating on social media. However, it was revealed that the video was actually a fake, and the real Zelenskyy instead called for Ukrainians to never “lay down any weapons”. Though the origin of the doctored video is uncertain, it is believed that it was created by the Russians. The risk of misinformation spreading ultra-rapidly due to social media in times of war is especially dangerous. Henry Farid, a professor at the University of Berkeley with a focus on misinformation and digital forensics, said that misinformation like this “pollutes the information ecosystem, and it casts a shadow on all content, which is already dealing with the complex fog of war”. The risk associated with this is that people could start to doubt real content and potentially believe fake content, which could have negative ramifications in terms of both defensive strategies and morale.

This is one reason why social media has become such a battleground during the Ukrainian Crisis: it is not just about selling one’s ideology, it is about trying to cast doubt on the other’s. Doubt becomes mistrust and mistrust is the foundation of division— and a divided foe is a weaker foe.

Creating Connections in a Disconnected War

However, some may argue that the effects of social media are merely amplified versions of previous wartime communications: livestreams have replaced radio, tweets have replaced newspaper headlines and Instagram posts have replaced posters. However, this is not really the case. Social media has something that none of these previous technologies had: bilateral communication. One may claim that President Zelenskyy’s tweets are simply the modern equivalent of Prime Minister Churchill’s radio speeches, yet Churchill could never engage with the British public, and indeed the rest of the world, on the same scale that Zelenskyy can. Churchill, outside of those in direct contact with him, could not receive feedback from his listeners. Zelenskyy, however, can see thousands of responses to each of his messages. These comments, though mostly filled with messages of support irrespective of the original tweet, are evidence of the greater engagement that social media has brought. Social media has allowed people, both in Ukraine and abroad, to feel more connected to the events of the crisis. However, this feeling of connectivity is not necessarily a good thing.

On one hand, it is useful as a way to gather support online, which can translate into physical aid through online donations or campaigns. The “StandUpForUkraine” campaign is evidence of social media’s staggering success in this sphere. In response to Zelenskyy’s appeal for a “Social Media Rally” to “support Ukrainian temporary migrants”, thousands of people flocked to social media to show their support. This included entertainment stars such as Billie Eilish and Elton John, foreign powers, including the European Union and Canada, as well as everyday people. The campaign was immensely successful and the European Union estimated that €9.1 billion was raised by the global campaign, all in support of displaced Ukrainians. Nevertheless, this same connectivity can be exploited and also lead to a self-licensing effect. As aforementioned, social media is not the most trustworthy of sources and there have been several cases where unscrupulous people have scammed people into donating to fake Ukrainian aid sites, by posting links on social media. Furthermore, social media has also potentially led to an increase of the self-licensing effect.

Written by Sarah Lam

This effect, also known as ‘moral licensing’ in behavioural economics, essentially states that a person can justify ‘bad’ actions by also taking ‘good’ actions. A common example is the ‘diet soda example’: Bob feels guilty about eating a burger so he orders a diet soda on the side, a supposedly “healthy” alternative. This allows him to subconsciously justify that his “healthy drink” balances out his “unhealthy meal”, although it is clear that this is a logical fallacy— simply ordering something ‘healthy’ does not cancel out the calories in the burger. In the case of social media, people can overestimate the impact of their support. It is possible that when people post a hashtag on Twitter, they believe that they have ‘done their part’ and so can justify not taking additional action as they have ‘already done something’. While such messages are useful for raising support and awareness, it is not particularly useful in a practical sense, unless additional action is taken as a result of the increased awareness. The StandUpForUkraine campaign, if it had just been people posting messages, would have done very little for the Ukrainian migrants. Only when people took the additional action of donating to the relevant aid organisations did it become a practically useful campaign. Though this effect can not be quantified, or even really studied scientifically, it is something worth considering.

Drawn by Rina Su

seen 3:34pm

Presbyterian Ladies’ College

@the_rumble

The Dawn of a New Age of Warfare There is no doubt that social media’s ubiquity in the modern age, and the high levels of international connectivity, will affect how people perceive, interact with and respond to conflict. The Ukrainian Crisis is the first of its kind and though we may hope for a more peaceful future, it is likely that this crisis will not be the last. Consequently, governments, private organisations and we, the general public, must be prepared to adapt to this. Social media is a true double-edged sword and how it is used may ultimately change information warfare forever

For more information, please hover your cursor over the link images on the left page to learn more and get inspired!

bin

Russia’s continuing and relentless invasion of Ukraine has led to waves of disorder within the nation and around the neighbouring countries - being threatened by the aggressive Russian military, Ukrainian citizens hope to flee to other countries to seek a safer living environment. However, does any country have the obligation to accept them, or any refugees in general? There are multiple concerns to evaluate in answering this question. Allowing foreign refugees to dwell in Australia could cause deterioration to the country’s public security and health; as refugees often come from places that suffer from poverty, hence the majority of the people are not able to afford good education and clean living conditions. In addition, while Australia is a wealthy and developed nation, the acceptance of foreigners will definitely increase the financial expense of the country, which is risky and disadvantageous. On the contrary, it can be admitted that Australia has the ability to offer support to foreign refugees, because the country is relatively low in population and high in resources, so it can accommodate an additional populace. Furthermore, the influx of young refugees can alleviate the ageing problem in Australia - this can prepare the country for a better future. Thus, Australia should accept foreign refugees to an adequate extent so that both the refugees and the nation itself can be benefited.

refugees may bring to the safety of local residents, Australia should rigorously examine the backgrounds of the incomers and provide shelter to those who are healthy and harmless to local residents.

SHOULD

The adoption of refugees comes at a cost to Australia’s financial resources. Allowing refugees to live in Australia indicates that the government has promised to support them both financially and physically. Australia provides foreign refugees with various and substantial subsidies, such as health care, education and public transport; however, as Australia’s population increases rapidly, the services granted to the refugees will only exacerbate the existing financial pressure inflicted on the federal government.

According to the Parliament of Australia, the government has spent more than 2.9 billion dollars on adopting immigrants and refugees, which represents up to 0.6% of the Australian Government’s total expenditure. While this amount of money may seem minimal, it could have been spent on helping local homeless citizens or those living in poverty instead of assisting foreign refugees. Therefore, large influxes of refugees can exert extensive demands on the government that further destabilise the Austral-

ACCOMMODATE

AUS

REFUGEE

Refugees can have an impact on a society’s well-being.

Australia is one of the few countries in the world that allow a large influx of refugees; the Australian government has even built apartments particularly for adopting refugees in the CBD. While the vast majority of refugees adapt to Australian society comfortably, a small proportion do not, and this can be a cause of concern in small societies. According to the Herald Sun, up to 35% of homicides are perpetrated by refugees, suggesting that the seemingly virtuous act of accepting refugees may be to the detriment of the social order Additionally, since the outbreak of the coronavirus, authorities have greatly reduced the intake of refugees as a way of reducing the threat of infection from overseas. Not only does the coronavirus adversely impact public health, but other diseases foreign refugees may bring into the country can also lead to a severe outbreak across A u s t r a l ia.

Therefore, given the consequence s

ian economy. This suggests that Australia should only accept incoming refugees if its financial condition can be ensured.

Australia’s adoption of international refugees, however, is a key factor in countering our ageing population. There are not many countries around the world that are competent in accommodating refugees; Australia is one of the rare and perfect nations for adopting refugees as it is both small in population and rich in resources. From 2018 to 2019 alone, Australia has resettled more than 30,000 refugees who are mostly from the Middle East; the United Nations likewise a f -

firmed that Australia has made significant contributions to the settlement of refugees by offering shelters and financial assistance. Undoubtedly, welcoming foreign refugees to live in Australia will provide them with a more stable and secure environment.

In addition, according to the Parliament of Australia, more than 15% of the nation’s population has an age over 65, and this percent-

STRALIA

age i s estimated to grow incessantly in the next ten years. Compared to the US which has a much larger population but only a slightly higher percentage of an ageing demographic, Australia is evidently facing the serious issue of the ageing population. Australian sociologists report that by allowing young refugees into Australia, the percentage of people above the age of 65 can be reduced to around 13%, ensuring that Australia will not encounter any precipitous decline in the birth rate during the next three decades. Therefore, Australia should continue to accommodate refugees as long as the welfare of local residents is maintained.

FOREIGN

S?

In conclusion, it is crucial for Australia to accept foreign refugees in appropriate numbers. Allowing unscreened refugees into Australia can affect public security and health since they often come from undeveloped countries in which the citizens are less educated. Additionally, the subsidy provided to refugees can gradually become a financial burden for Australia. However, developed countries around the world including Australia should endeavour to support other impoverished countries in various aspects, especially the accommodation of the refugees given that the lives of humans are invaluable and irretrievable when lost. Hence, as a relatively developed country, Australia should offer assistance to refugees to also improve its own issue of the ageing population. Above all, Australia should make reasonable contributions to the support of foreign refugees as an aid to other countries and an alleviation to many emerging social challenges in the country.

By Amy Bai 9K

AS TECH

Will the world get better

-NOLOGY IMPROVES? KAYLA HONG 7BALMORAL

echnology seems to advance so quickly that staying up to date on the latest innovations is more or less impossible.

This is especially true as we age. Your grandma struggles when using her smartphone because she was brought up in a time when one couldn’t imagine the existence of such a thing.

Although technology has offered remarkable convenience to our lives, the development has also brought permanent, influential changes that will worsen the world inchmeal. Here are some reasons that underpin my opinions.

First and foremost, alongside the advancement of technology, the civilization and heritage of human beings will be lost. Seven million years, that’s right, the legacy of seven million years will be nowhere in decade’s time, or worse, within one year. Experts believe it is crucial and fatal that we know the history, we care about them and we love them.

British historian Penelope J. Corfield

wrote, “The wisest among them look to the past, to understand the foundations, as well as to the future, in order to build.” We as humans can learn so much from what has happened before us. But in fact, it is very likely that The Egyptian Pyramids, the Eiffel Tower, the Forbidden City, and the Sydney Opera House, these cultural relics carrying the essence of human wisdom, will disappear overnight, because people will no longer care about history as they are all addicted to their electronic devices, caring about celebrities and vloggers. Watching YouTube instead of learning history, we will very soon lose ourselves, squander our lives and mislay our world. Therefore, the world won’t

H

be a better place if technology improves.

In addition, through the rapid technology’s development, the value of the existence of human beings will be diminishing and it will also produce a financial crisis. Robots could replace as many as 2 million more workers by 2025, according to a recent paper by economists at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and Boston University.

Even if the change is not imminent right now, industry experts such as Fortune have stated that “robots will replace 40% of jobs in the next 15 years”. This is horrifying. Once an era of technology arrives, artificial intelligence will begin taking jobs away from people, millions of jobs—as drivers, doctors, insurance adjusters. In one possible scenario, the governments as well as taxpayers will have to pay and support unemployed citizens a basic income, freeing them to pursue their dreams unburdened by the need to earn a liv-

ing. This will consequently force the government to raise the tax, and more people will suffer from their poor income. Thus, due to the economic crisis technologies will bring, it is doubtful that the world will improve.

Furthermore, with the massive substitution of technology in our life, it will lead to a large brain-drain in society, which is split into two aspects, genius and mortal. First of all, for genius, they have been threatened by technologies that their jobs are possibly going to be taken over by robots or any other kinds of artificial intelligence. Some of the smartest minds in the world, including Elon Musk and Bill Gates, are afraid now that in the next few years, there will be no need for them, as they are against smart machines which are competent at doing everything. Secondly, for us, civilians, we are getting lazier and more apathetic about everything. For example, the average artificial intelligence salary in Canada is $81,243 per year or $41.66 per hour, which equals around 110000 Australian Dollars. This data further infers that the demand for AI is increasing, and almost

everyone is relying on robots. Those people who had the potential of being scientists are now just lying in an armchair, ordering their robot servants around. This might cause a serious brain drain in the world. That’s why technology isn’t beneficial for the world.

To reiterate, it is improbable that the world will get better if the technology improves as the loss of heritage, the financial crisis, and the brain-drain. However, I believe if we don’t overuse technology and abuse them, they are definitely assisting our lives invisibly.

E-Scooters in Melbourne E-scooters for hire were brought to Melbourne in February this year, but already have the public divided.

Naysayers point to the hooligans they’ve seen on the six o’clock news - abandoning their scooters in the streets after a joyride, careening down the footpath at 20 kilometres an hour.

But in fact, there were only 217 infringements in the first two weeks of the scooter-rental program, most as minor as forgetting a helmet. For pedestrians worried about their own safety, the UK can be used as a case study. In an entire calendar year, there were just three deaths of e-scooter riders, and not a single pedestrian was killed by the machines. The product may have some issues, but that is exactly the purpose of a trial - to test a new technology on a focused group of people, so that it may be redesigned according to their needs.

Of course, there will always be people who flout the rules. But the media seems to sensationalise any incident, leaving those few wrongdoers

By Olivia Campbell

representative of an entire consumer class. Google ‘e-scooter death’ and you’ll find no fewer than eight articles, detailing graphically, almost gleefully, the same collision of a scooter-rider and a cyclist in Perth.

Very rarely do we discuss the litany of positive impacts that the arrival of e-scooters has had on Melbourne and its people.

With petrol prices spiking after the Ukrainian war, cars are becoming unaffordable for many families. For these people, scooter rentals provide a cheap alternative for travel within the city.

Further, replacing cars with these devices helps to reduce congestion in the city centre. Scooters are agile and small, able to weave around traffic and park virtually anywhere.

They also represent a step forward in the development of green transport.

The scooters are electrically powered, meaning that they could run on a grid powered entirely by solar or wind energy.

When a single car releases 4.6 tonnes

“ EDITORS Yanyu Dong Kehui Du Rina Su

WRITERS Sarah Lam Kayla Hong Amy Bai Olivia Campbell

ILLUSTRATOR Rina Su (cartoon on page 3)

PHOTOGRAPHER Yanyu Dong (front cover and e-scooter image)

of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere each year, wide uptake of scooters has the potential to drastically change the climate and air quality of a city.

With these facts in mind, it’s hard to regard e-scooters as anything other than the next great innovation. So why are voices in opposition so loud?

In this world, we are all afraid of change.

Of disorder, chaos. After a global pandemic, our people are returning to the world to find it… different. One neon scooter rushes past us and ruffles our hair, it becomes emblematic of a far broader social issue. And so we attack this scapegoat, this proxy, rather than addressing our truer concerns - about the rise of environmentalism, or the perception of older people in society as defunct relics. We have seen this rhetoric repeated time and time again throughout history, first with the carriage, then the bicycle, then the car.

But the years have lent us thought and hindsight. We can now agree that these innovations were key turning points, even with their risks and downsides, changing society for the better.

And so, without fear, I can say that this technology is my future.

What’s yours?

SPECIAL THANKS TO Mr Sam Haines

”

CLAIM: The front cover image is taken in the ACMI Light and the work is by Olafur Eliasson. It is used here for education purpose in the school magazine.