“The harm in this matter is difficult to overstate,” wrote a New Mexico judge who ordered tech giant Meta to pay one of the largest data privacy case penalties in American history. The US$25 billion fine came in a case about how Trump campaign firm Cambridge Analytica deceptively used data from Facebook users without their permission to create psychographic profiles to target voters in the lead-up to the 2016 presidential election.

But the New Mexico penalty was for statements Facebook made that deceived users about data privacy and its response to Cambridge Analytica – not for the harm caused by how the harvested data was used. Those harms are alleged to include exploiting psychological vulnerabilities, targeting people’s fears and discouraging them from voting.

I’m a political communication scholar who studies propaganda, surveillance and information warfare. My research helped expose the Cambridge Analytica scandal through U.K. newspaper The Guardian’s reporting on whistelblower accounts and the evidence I uncovered. That evidence was submitted to parliamentary and congressional investigations. I have followed the unfolding legal cases closely.

My takeaway from a decade of litigation is that Facebook has been penalized for misleading users and regulators about its data practices and its response to the Cambridge Analytica scandal. But I would contend that the company has largely escaped accountability for the underlying political exploitation of that data.

Investigative failures

The failure to bring cases around harms may be partly due to earlier failures to fully investigate the data misuse.

The Senate Intelligence Committee’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election encompassed Cambridge Analytica. However, the committee stated in its final report that it “was unable to obtain the corporate communications of Cambridge Analytica or its parent company SCL Group, which had already been seized by U.K. authorities.”

The relevant U.K. authorities, the Information Commissioner’s Office, which governs data protection and took possession of Cambridge Analytica’s servers, told me in response to my 2021 Freedom of Information Act request that the Senate committee staff made initial inquiries to the office but appear not to have followed up with a formal request, “so no information sharing has taken place.” Without a formal request, the Senate Intelligence Committee’s investigation lacked important data.

At the same time, the U.K. investigations of Cambridge Analytica’s use of personal data to manipulate voting behavior focused on the referendum of British voters over whether to leave the E.U., not events in the U.S.

A 2020 documentary film I advised as a researcher, “People You May Know,” raised questions about Cambridge Analytica’s work with an app marketed to American churches, called Gloo, that used Cambridge Analytica’s Facebook data-derived psychographic profiling in their communities. Evidence in the New Mexico case reinvigorates these questions about the full extent of the Cambridge Analytica scandal.

The judge in the case ruled Facebook knew that its own processes for investigating whether apps misused personal data were inadequate and that it could not enforce deletion of the data. The judge also concluded the company failed to notify users about thousands of applications associated with data misuse. Meta said it would appeal the decision.

Meta responded to a request for comment with the company’s official statement about the New Mexico ruling, arguing the case “seeks to impose a tax on speech to enforce new rules for what people can say online.” Meta did not address the issue of its own role in the data privacy violations committed by Cambridge Analytica.

Escaping further scrutiny

Meta is also trying to close the door on further claims before they are litigated.

In August 2026, on the eve of a child-safety trial in federal court in Oakland, California, Meta settled with a bipartisan coalition of state attorneys general for roughly $17 billion. The agreement includes 47 states, the District of Columbia and two U.S. territories. Folded into that deal was an allocation of $459.3 million to settle Cambridge Analytica-related claims held by participating states.

The participating attorneys general agreed, to the extent of their authority, to “fully, finally, and forever” release Meta from “any and all Claims, whether known or unknown, whether accrued or unaccrued.” By expressly encompassing “unknown” and “unaccrued” claims, the agreement reached beyond what investigators had already uncovered. Participating states accepted payment to give up claims arising from Meta’s conduct even if they did not yet know those claims existed.

A decade-old matter - Facebook’s role in the Cambridge Analytica scandal - was quietly brushed under the rug in an unrelated lawsuit about harm to teens.

From the 2019 Federal Trade Commission order to the 2022 class action settlement to August 2026’s multistate deal, settlements and releases have meant the company paid a relatively small price for its deception while not having the harms from the data exploitation adjudicated. Ultimately, the biggest privacy judgment in American history stands as a measure of the cover-up, not the alleged crime.

Other scholars and I regularly call attention to the lack of comprehensive U.S. privacy legislation, but there remain other legal pathways to pursue the harms Cambridge Analytica wrought. States like New Mexico can continue the fight, and Attorney General Raúl Torrez, who brought the case, promised, “We’re just getting started.”

Dissenting from the FTC’s 2019 settlement, then-Commissioner Rohit Chopra criticized the failure to consider “Facebook’s unjust enrichment.” He said “the company’s potential exposure is likely far greater” than the $5 billion imposed by the FTC settlement.

What price for the harm?

The question remains what exactly Facebook gained from enabling Cambridge Analytica’s abuses. Authorities could also investigate harmful data use for any other apps Facebook may have failed to fully assess, including any associated with Cambridge Analytica’s projects.

If the deception about Cambridge Analytica is worth $25 billion, I believe the public is entitled to know what the underlying harms to them are worth. New Mexico opted out of the 2026 multistate settlement and proved that a state willing to go to trial against Meta can win.

The next task, in my view, is to investigate fully and, where legal claims remain available, pursue accountability for harms resulting from the data exploitation. Otherwise, Cambridge Analytica will remain at the heart of the most consequential privacy scandal in American history, whose full harms have not been tested in court.

Emma L. Briant, Visiting Associate Professor at the Lucy Family Institute for Data and Society, University of Notre Dame

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

This week’s mid-term elections in the United States saw huge swings to the Democrats, away from President Donald Trump’s Republican party.

One surprisingly important factor was a rising backlash to the ongoing boom in data centre development triggered by the rise of artificial intelligence (AI) in recent years.

Americans across ten states overwhelmingly voted in favour of candidates campaigning for local restrictions on data centres.

According to exit polls, some 56% of voters said AI data centres were a crucial or major factor in their vote.

The data centre push

The results are a sign of growing tension between America’s ambition to lead in AI and the willingness of local communities to host the infrastructure needed to support it.

The Trump administration has touted data centre expansion as a core pillar of American technological leadership and economic growth. In July 2025, President Trump signed an executive order to accelerate the development of data centres.

He has also warned that communities opposing them risk becoming “backwards and poor”.

In June alone, US$4.4 billion was spent on building data centres. This is a fivefold increase from November 2022, when ChatGPT was first released. Around 75% of data centres under construction are currently concentrated in Republican-led states.

However, signs of growing opposition to data centres were clear in the run-up to the midterms.

The data centre backlash

Pew Research showed American sentiment hardening against data centres between January and August this year. Most Americans believe data centres do more harm than good, citing concerns about energy costs, environmental pressures and noise.

Local communities have been especially sensitive to rising home energy prices during an affordability crisis. In areas located near US data centres, wholesale electricity prices have increased by up to 267% over the past five years.

Beyond these impacts to the hip pocket, opposition to data centres also reflects wider public unease about AI. Communities are asking what they stand to gain from AI if they are being asked to foot the bill.

The political cost

Many of the Republican states that Trump won in 2024 encouraged data centres through faster permitting, land use approvals and sweetheart tax deals. But as public opposition grew, candidates from both parties pivoted towards advocating for stronger data centre regulations.

Democrats are more likely than Republicans to view the impacts of data centres negatively. Democratic candidates were quicker to capitalise on the discontent and campaign for tighter oversight and restrictions. Democrat-led states including New Jersey, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Oregon have already introduced local bans or are debating statewide bans.

Republicans were slower to shift, facing tensions between local opposition and President Trump’s support for data centre development.

The 2026 midterms rewarded candidates who campaigned on a platform of restricting data centre buildouts. Gubernatorial races in Texas, Ohio and Georgia – all major growth areas for data centres – were won by candidates calling for pauses on new data centres.

As the Democratic sweep became apparent, US-based data centre stocks tumbled. States led by Democrats who support restrictions on data centre development account for around 45% of planned US capacity.

Tighter regulations could mean more project delays and increased costs. Investment may shift towards other jurisdictions or countries with more accommodating regulatory environments.

With the 2028 presidential election approaching, data centres and AI will likely become key battlegrounds. Lawmakers will be mindful of balancing global AI leadership against the mounting local costs of supporting AI compute.

Implications for Australia

Australia’s data centre market is significantly smaller than the US market, but it is growing fast. The backlash is growing, too.

In September, an A$1.2 billion data centre project in Sydney’s north shore was scrapped in the face of strong community opposition. In Melbourne, residents have used bins and cars to block the construction of huge power lines for a data centre project in West Footscray.

Australian data centre operator Firmus cancelled a planned stock market listing when interest from overseas investors faded. The company’s signature data centre projects in Tasmania face stiff local opposition.

The Australian government is developing mandatory national standards for large data centres. These will include requirements on energy and water use, project siting and community engagement. Restrictions on developments near homes and recreational facilities have also been flagged.

However, it is unclear how stringent the requirements will be and how they will interact with existing state and territory rules.

To be effective, the standards will need to address community concerns rather than simply add another layer of regulation and bureaucracy. Clear siting requirements, transparent reporting of resource use, stronger renewable energy commitments, and meaningful early consultation will be essential to winning community approval.

The US midterms demonstrated how data centres can become a potent political issue. If Australia wants to capture the opportunities of AI, it must also earn the trust of the communities expected to host the infrastructure.

Johanna Lim, Research Associate, Strategic Technologies, University of Sydney and Olivia Shen, Director, Strategic Technologies, United States Studies Centre, University of Sydney

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

Hackers have stolen around US$6.3 billion (£4.7 billion) from the cryptocurrency exchange Binance, most of which was taken in under an hour. According to Binance, the attack exploited systems and individuals with the authority to carry out transactions involving such large sums.

Such vulnerabilities exist everywhere; statistics show that people and the systems they directly use, including their personal computers, remain a top target for cybercriminals. All organisations could therefore learn lessons from this attack.

The Binance theft took place on the evening of October 29, 2026. The Binance attack netted four times the amount stolen in the previous biggest cryptocurrency theft, on the Bybit exchange in February 2025.

Private keys, used to authorise spending or withdrawal from crypto-wallets, are a known vulnerability. But Binance found no evidence these were leaked. An initial statement from the exchange pointed to a compromised laptop belonging to an engineer. This gave the attacker access to the internal system that processes withdrawal requests.

Because blockchain transactions can be fully audited, investigators can trace the events leading up to the attack. On October 28, the address from which the theft was later carried out received 0.3 ETH (Ether cryptocurrency) from Tornado Cash, a service that mixes funds from multiple users to hide their origin.

A few hours before the theft, a malicious smart contract (computer code that automatically runs when certain conditions are met) was deployed from the same address. At 20:20:59 UTC, a transaction was sent from that address containing 50 signed authorisations intended to transfer control of a Binance wallet to that smart contract. One of them was accepted by a Binance hot wallet (a wallet used by the exchange to process customer withdrawals).

Following this takeover, the hackers proceeded to empty the hot wallet of 64 different tokens worth approximately $2.5 billion (£1.8 billion) in a single transaction. Other wallets were then emptied in parallel using standard signed transactions, bringing the total amount stolen to $6.3 billion. Valid Binance digital signatures were needed for draining the wallets, but how the attackers obtained these has not been explained.

The same audit trail shows that the attackers were rehearsing several hours earlier, but at that stage, nothing linked them to Binance.

Familiar tactics

The 2025 attack on Bybit, which resulted in the theft of US$1.5 billion (£1.1 billion), also appears to have involved a compromised laptop that was capable of performing operations requiring high-level privileges.

North Korean cybercriminals, who were implicated in the attack on the Bybit exchange by analysts, specialise in creating so-called “legends”. These are identities created to deceive companies and individuals. In October, the US Department of Justice indicted 14 individuals in a case in which North Korean cybercriminals, using stolen or fabricated identities, secured remote jobs at more than 70 US companies.

Two days before the attack, Binance reported that, for a week, it had been blocking North Korea-linked attack attempts involving fake recruiters. Was this related to the attack? We don’t know yet, but the modus operandi is well recognised and widespread. North Korea, meanwhile, has denied allegations that it was behind the attack.

A cybercriminal can use a legend to pose for months as a hardworking employee, a cheap and reliable contractor, or as a generous employer. The criminal waits for the moment when a crucial software installation is carried out or a vital document is signed. Since a large amount of today’s work involves only digital interactions with people, it is sensible to approach every new contact with limited trust.

A good example of how such legends work is the attack on the Japanese DMM Bitcoin exchange in 2024, which netted US$308 million (£230 million) for the attackers. The hacker posed as a recruiter on LinkedIn and gained the trust of a Ginco employee.

Ginco is a company that provides DMM with wallet management software. The recruiter offered the Ginco employee a job on the condition that they completed a recruitment test. The test URL actually led to a malicious Python script; from this point on, the victim’s computer was compromised.

This is classic social engineering. In this case, the target was a cryptocurrency wallet system accessed through a compromised computer. About two months later, the attackers drained funds from DMM.

Lessons for business

Virtually all businesses should learn from such attacks. The first lesson concerns what their computer systems are allowed to authorise. Traditionally, cryptographic keys are protected using devices known as hardware security modules and multi-signature schemes (where multiple private keys are required to authorise an action).

Unfortunately, such mechanisms do not protect against an attack launched from a compromised internal system controlled by a hacker. It is advisable to define rules for authorising financial transactions, set time and amount limits, and require approval via an alternative channel for unusual requests.

Additionally, since most of the funds in the Binance cyberattack were transferred within an hour, computer systems should have mechanisms in place to block suspicious transactions within seconds, without waiting for approval from the on-duty security engineer.

The second lesson is about recruitment, which has evolved into a security mechanism. North Korean cybercriminals use stolen or fabricated identities and virtual private networks (VPNs) to pose as people living in the US.

Visual identities during online interviews can be falsified using deepfakes. Video interviews and CVs no longer prove who someone really is. In some cases, actors are even hired for in-person interviews. Today, we need to focus on strengthening the identity verification process. It’s important to check candidates through independently verified contacts during this process.

The third lesson concerns the work computers of individuals with privileged access to the computer system. Typically, organisations have protected themselves against phishing through training and email filters.

Unfortunately, some of the attacks described above bypass the filters that are currently in use because they target specific victims (an act known as spear phishing).

In the case of Bybit, gaining access to a developer’s computer allowed the attacker to seize session tokens in the cloud and bypass multi-factor authentication. One possible solution is to separate privileged access from day-to-day operations.

To this end, access to withdrawal systems should only be permitted from company-managed dedicated devices, and computer code received from external sources should only be executed in an isolated environment.

The largest cryptocurrency theft in history is essentially a story about how people and processes are the weakest links in security systems. Cryptography was not compromised and remains a key security measure. Unfortunately, these same vulnerabilities exist in banks, payment companies and hospitals and attackers are well aware of them.

Bogdan Księżopolski, Head of the Institute of Computer Science, Head of Cybersecurity Department, Kozminski University

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

Recent media reports of alleged sexual assaults by teenage boys draws attention to an uncomfortable truth: that young people sometimes perpetrate harmful sexual behaviour against their peers.

These reports are only the tip of the iceberg. The Australian Child Maltreatment Study surveyed more than 8,500 Australians aged 16 and over, and found that nearly three in ten (28.5%) had experienced child sexual abuse, nearly half of abuse reported was carried out by young people under 18.

Among the youngest age group surveyed (16–24 years), sexual abuse by another young person was more frequently reported than sexual abuse by an adult (18.2% compared with 11.7%).

What do we know about young people whose sexual behaviour harms others? And how can we keep them and those around them safe?

Why do children harm others?

Research shows many young people who have harmed others as a result of their sexual behaviours have experienced child maltreatment themselves.

However, this does not mean experiencing abuse inevitably leads to harming others.

Other factors associated with the development of these behaviours include childhood exposure to pornography, experience of domestic and family violence, and sexualised or unstable home environments.

Harmful sexual behaviour takes many forms. It can involve coercion, threats, or exploitation and can occur online or offline. Such behaviour often involves differences in age, developmental capacity, physical strength, or gender, including between siblings and peers. Its frequency and severity vary.

Recognising this broad spectrum of behaviours and that young people are still developing their identity and capacity, researchers and treatment providers use “harmful sexual behaviour” as an umbrella term to describe sexual behaviours displayed by under 18s that harm others.

Our research shows non-stigmatising language such as “harmful sexual behaviour” encourages people to seek help and supports young people to stay engaged in treatment. This is important to help them stop the behaviour and take responsibility for the harm.

What can we do to reduce harmful sexual behaviour?

Everyone can play a role in reducing harm, but knowing where to start is not easy.

To address this, we have developed an online resource hub – Together We Can – to help professionals, parents and young people access evidence-aligned resources to prevent and respond to harmful sexual behaviour.

The hub is the first of its kind in Australia and brings together carefully sourced and vetted resources. It has also been tested by health professionals, parents, and young people.

What can we learn from these resources?

The evidence suggests harmful sexual behaviour is preventable, so parents and carers can:

Start talking about bodily autonomy early: Have age-appropriate conversations with children about body safety, boundaries, consent, respectful relationships and the impacts of porn and online influences such as manosphere.

Work with schools: Does your child’s school or childcare centre have a child safe organisation policy in place? Ask what that looks like in practice and how parents can be involved in helping to keep everyone safe.

Be a positive role model: Children learn from adults. How we talk about sex and consent, treat women and girls, and challenge sexist attitudes and behaviour helps shape their understanding of respect and equality.

What if you notice or receive reports of concerning behaviour?

Most sexual behaviours displayed by children are developmentally appropriate such as asking questions about physical differences between boys and girls, or exploring their own body in private.

Knowing the difference between problematic and harmful sexual behaviours is important when deciding how to respond.

Problematic behaviours are generally unusual for a child’s age or development, and may occur repeatedly despite adults stepping in to intervene. These behaviours can cause distress, confusion, or shame for the child or others.

Harmful sexual behaviours, by contrast, are highly intrusive and violate another person’s safety and dignity. They often occur in the context of power imbalances related to age, size, cognitive ability, gender, or social status.

Equip yourself with knowledge to recognise the difference between developmentally appropriate, problematic, and harmful sexual behaviours.

Then act on early warning signs – every concerning behaviour is an opportunity for children to learn what is appropriate and what is not.

Depending on the child’s age and development, some behaviours may simply need your redirection or correction, while more persistent or intrusive behaviours may require professional interventions.

How to support children

Parents and carers play an important role in supporting all children impacted by or exhibiting harmful sexual behaviours. This includes:

Taking it seriously: Harmful sexual behaviour can have long-term impacts on victim-survivors. If a child discloses harm, believe them, reassure them they are not to blame, prioritise their safety and seek appropriate support.

Seeking help early: For the young person who caused harm, seeking help early can make a difference. Research suggests many young people do not go on to sexually offend as adults, especially with timely therapeutic support.

Staying involved: Our research shows young people are more likely to complete treatment if parents and carers are actively involved in the treatment with them.

It can be profoundly unsettling for parents to learn their child is displaying harmful sexual behaviour. Parents’ wellbeing matters too. Reaching out to a trusted friend or professional can help reduce isolation.

With support, most children can learn to make safer choices, and families can recover and heal. To learn more, explore our Get Help page.

Resources are available at Together We Can. If this article has caused distress, or if you’re concerned about someone you know, you can call Beyond Blue on 1300 22 4646, Kids Helpline on 1800 55 1800, or 13YARN on 13 92 76.

We gratefully acknowledge the contributions of Jacqui Cameron, Summer May Finlay and Andrea Knezevic from the University of Wollongong to the development of Together We Can.

Kenny Kor, Senior Lecturer, Social Work, University of Wollongong; Rebecca Goodbourn, Research Fellow, Social Work, University of Wollongong; Simon Hackett, Emeritus Professor, Centre for Research into Violence and Abuse, Durham University, and Sophie Gillfeather-Spetere, Research Fellow, Social Work, University of Wollongong

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

A breath of fresh air does wonders for the body and mind.

In some areas, however, the air may not be as clean as it seems. This may be due to pollution or natural hazards such as bushfires and dust storms.

If you’re worried about air quality in your local area, there’s no shortage of apps and websites promising to help.

But which should you choose? And can you trust the information they offer?

Where to start

In Australia, the most reliable place to start is your state or territory Environmental Protection Authority website.

These sites publish air quality information in many formats, from technical data and colour coded advisory maps to emergency incident updates.

The data comes from government monitoring networks, which operate under the Australian National Environment Protection (Ambient Air Quality) Measure. This framework sets assessment standards to ensure air quality data is collected and interpreted in a consistent, accurate and transparent way.

At first glance, this data may look intimidating. The simplest way to interpret it is to check the air quality category for your location. These categories are colour coded based on a traffic light system, with green indicating “good” air quality and dark red identifying areas with “extremely poor” air quality.

To determine these categories, the government collects data on the pollutant concentration in an area, which is the amount of a harmful substance found in a volume of air. This data is quality checked and published as hourly updates.

What about phone apps?

Mobile phone apps provide air quality information on the go. These apps often re-purpose data from government websites, sometimes in combination with low-cost monitoring networks like IQAir and PurpleAir.

These networks typically use indicative data, which points to general trends without offering exact values. So while these apps are convenient, it pays to check where their data comes from and if it has been modified in any way.

Many mobile apps use a traffic light reporting system that looks similar to the government’s air quality categories. However, a handful use the Air Quality Index. This index ranks common pollutants – such as carbon monoxide and sulfur dioxide – on a scale from 0 to 500. The higher the number, the most “risky” the pollutant from an air pollution and human health perspective.

This numbers-based approach is useful for classifying air quality, but can hide important details. For instance, an app may not indicate which pollutant the air quality index is based on or whether measurements are taken hourly, daily or weekly. Just as weather apps can give varied forecasts, air quality apps can report different values for the same place and time because they use different models and data sources.

Grassroots solutions

To gather accurate air quality data, government monitoring systems rely on equipment known as reference instruments. These are highly precise devices that require regular maintenance, along with frequent checks and adjustments to ensure accurate readings. Given their complex design, reference instruments can be difficult to move and expensive to operate.

In contrast, indicative monitors are small, compact and affordable devices powered by batteries or solar. They estimate levels of dust, temperature and humidity. Some also measure gases and volatile organic compounds, which have been shown to harm human health.

Indicative monitors help fill gaps in official monitoring data and are widely used in community projects, such as OPENAIR and Air Watch. On a broader level, indicative networks can help identify and track pollution sources such as vehicle emissions and woodsmoke.

However, their data must be interpreted with caution. Without regular care and maintenance, the sensors in indicative monitors can become less accurate over time. What’s more, monitors can be placed in unsuitable locations – for instance, next to barbecues or outdoor smoking areas – where poor airflow can distort the readings.

So while indicative monitors can alert us to poor air quality, the data they provide is approximate, not exact.

What you can do

Air quality data from apps and websites can vary in quality and reliability.

Before trusting an air quality data app or website, it’s best to ask four simple questions:

• Who runs it? This may be a government agency, university, research body, company or community network.

• What data is it showing? Certain sources may present primary data collected by the organisation that operates the app or website, while others rely on secondary data repurposed from somewhere else.

• What instruments do they use? This determines whether an app or website provides estimates, indicative data or reference grade data, which is the gold standard.

• What quality control is in place? This includes measures such as regular maintenance and calibration, being placed in an appropriate location and transparent information about a system’s limitations.

If a platform cannot provide clear answers to these questions, it may still be useful. But it should not be treated as the final word on air quality.

So the challenge is not finding data, but knowing how to assess its quality and interpret it responsibly.

Margaret Davidson, Senior Lecturer, Occupational Hygiene and Environmental Health, Western Sydney University

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

It was a frightening time.

On a hot, gusty day in January 2003, I found myself on the hill behind my Canberra home, watching as billows of black smoke rolled through neighbouring suburbs.

Many of my friends and family members were left scrambling during the Canberra bushfires of 2003, which destroyed almost 500 homes and claimed the lives of four people.

This summer, Australia is bracing for what could be a challenging fire season. The official spring outlook warns of a “heightened risk of fire” across many states and territories, driven by a combination of dry conditions and increased fuel loads.

Following the cataclysmic Black Summer bushfires, the 2020 Royal Commission raised disaster communication as a persistent challenge. It recommended making disaster information more tailored and consistent.

The revised national Australian Fire Danger Rating System activates on days with high fire risk, and encourages people to monitor conditions and official sources for warnings. But my research suggests informal communication channels are just as important.

Through the grapevine

For decades, Australia’s emergency authorities have relied on a traditional crisis communication model – agencies send messages and the public receives them.

The 2020 Royal Commission underscored communication as a key concern, calling for improved information flow from officials to the community.

However, my conversations with disaster survivors reveals people aren’t just passive recipients. They find, verify and share information through their networks to understand and respond to emergencies – behaviours official agencies often don’t see.

My research examines how communities actively build their own disaster communication networks alongside, and sometimes in place of, formal emergency management channels. I focused on three specific disasters, namely:

• the 2022 Brisbane floods

• the 2022 Northern Rivers floods

• the 2019–20 Black Summer bushfires on the far South Coast of New South Wales.

I interviewed 19 community members, who told me who they relied on for information. I call these people “information intermediaries”. They didn’t just share messages but translated official, and often complex, warnings and information into locally relevant guidance.

These community members also bridged technological gaps, turning to tools such as face-to-face conversations and phone trees. This allowed them to get information to those without access to technology and keep communication channels open when technology failed.

These information networks kept working long after the immediate disaster was under control. For example, several communities set up two identical WhatsApp groups, one for social chat and the other to distribute vital information in times of emergency.

Meet Stuart and Margaret

Two people who embody the idea of “information intermediaries” are Stuart and Margaret (both names are pseudonyms).

Stuart lives on the NSW South Coast. Prior to the 2019 fire season, Stuart had already established his own bushfire warning system. He was able to track a fire’s location on an app and monitor wind patterns on another. Stuart also convinced his neighbours to create a collective bushfire plan.

Over a drink on the back deck, they formed a local communication network that allowed each household to stay informed about changing weather conditions. Stuart didn’t just protect himself from future bushfires, but equipped his whole neighbourhood to prepare themselves.

Margaret is a Brisbane resident who, while working part-time at a local school, got to know many parents and families. When floodwaters inundated Brisbane in 2011, Margaret set up a “pop up childcare” centre to help local families cope.

For the first six months, Margaret ran the centre as a volunteer support hub. She spent the next decade rallying support and applying for grant funding. By 2022, she had become the manager of a government funded neighbourhood centre designed to support locals, including during future disasters.

So what can we do?

As well as declaring warnings, emergency management could actively work with communities to create and share bushfire information.

In the short-term, this could involve identifying local information intermediaries and existing networks. Recording their contact details and preferred communication channels would ensure direct contact between trusted locals and emergency management, when a disaster hits.

This benefits both sides: agencies get real time, on the ground information while intermediaries are able to verify and relay information from official channels.

Longer-term, fire agencies could recognise people like Stuart and Margaret as a vital part of local disaster response.

In practice, this means an agency knows who to rely on before the fire or flood, actively fosters these relationships between disasters and supports locals in tangible ways, such as through a formal government partnership. Rather than creating a new communication channel, this supports those that already exist.

If you live in a disaster-prone area, you can help make your community more resilient by building your own networks. This may look like reaching out to your neighbours about how you can help each other or who might need extra help when disaster strikes.

Emergency management has continued to invest in the national bushfire warning system, constantly improving the clarity, reach and timeliness of disaster warnings. But official communication channels are only one part of a much bigger picture.

Success should be measured not just by how many people receive the official message, but also how quickly accurate information gets to the trusted locals and networks that people actually listen to.

Susan Atkinson, Adjunct Associate Professor, Centre for Environmental Governance, University of Canberra

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

Have you ever gone to your GP to find out why you’re always tired, only to be told to lose weight?

Or perhaps you’ve joined a gym hoping to move more, only to be bombarded with messages about “burning fat” and achieving the “ideal body”.

These experiences reflect a common approach to health promotion that treats weight loss as the primary pathway to better health. But decades of research shows that focusing on weight worsens weight stigma.

Weight stigma refers to negative attitudes or behaviours towards larger-bodied people based on their weight. It includes unfair assumptions that larger-bodied people are lazy, unintelligent or lack willpower.

These attitudes are so common that treating larger-bodied people badly is often considered “socially acceptable”. We even see this play out on popular TV shows like Parks and Recreation and The Office. Larger-bodied characters are often the target of cruel “jokes” for comic relief.

Weight stigma can affect many areas of daily life. Larger-bodied people may avoid playing sport, visiting the doctor, or dating because of concerns about how they will be treated.

Weight stigma has also been linked to health and wellbeing concerns, such as increased disordered eating, suicidal ideation and stress.

Because of this, researchers and advocates have called for approaches to health promotion that support health without focusing on weight loss. Our new research shows how this can be done.

What’s wrong with the status quo?

Health promotion aims to create the conditions that make it possible for people to control and improve their health and wellbeing.

A key commitment of health promotion is making sure everyone has a fair chance to improve their health and wellbeing. This means addressing the broader factors that shape health and wellbeing like income, housing, education, transport and access to health care.

Improving financial security, for example, can make it easier for people to afford nutritious food and stable housing.

Health promotion that focuses on weight loss has been criticised for not aligning with these goals. Encouraging weight loss and lifestyle changes to improve health promotes the idea that improving public health is primarily a personal responsibility.

Our new research explores an alternative approach that addresses these concerns: size-inclusive health promotion.

What size-inclusive health promotion looks like

Health promotion practice that moves beyond weight-loss and addresses weight stigma is known as size-inclusive health promotion.

We conducted a scoping review (which maps what evidence there is on a certain topic) of size-inclusive health promotion. Across 58 studies, we identified 27 different initiatives, including guidelines, campaigns, programs and local health strategies used in health care, education, recreation and fitness settings.

Some examples already exist in Australia, including VicHealth’s This Girl Can campaign, Better Health Network’s Towards Size Inclusive Health Promotion resource, the National Eating Disorders Collaboration’s Eating Disorder Safe Principles and The Embrace Collective’s Body Blocks program.

While initiatives varied, three practical and widely applicable strategies for adopting size-inclusive health promotion appeared repeatedly:

1. Use non-stigmatising, neutral language

Any communications about health, weight and bodies should avoid language that is stigmatising or harmful.

Instead, terms such as fat, higher-weight and larger-bodied (depending on people’s preferences) should be used.

A health service or gym, for example, might review newsletters, posters and websites to remove any stigmatising language (such as “unhealthy weight”, “overweight” or “obesity”). While these may seem “medical”, larger-bodied people often find them stigmatising.

2. Represent people of diverse body sizes in health promotion materials

Health promotion materials should include images and videos of larger-bodied people, like footage used in This Girl Can showing women of diverse body sizes moving their bodies.

3. Make sure environments are safe and welcoming for people of all sizes

People of all sizes deserve to feel comfortable and included in different environments.

This might look like sporting clubs ensuring their sporting equipment is safe and comfortable for larger-bodied people to use. Or a health service making sure blood pressure cuffs and seating in waiting rooms are suitable for larger bodies.

These three strategies provide “easy-wins” that can be implemented across different settings, including government, health care, education, fitness, recreational and community settings.

So far, evaluation data suggest size-inclusive health promotion may benefit psychological and behavioural outcomes such as appearance satisfaction and exercise intent.

However, broader policy action is still needed to truly progress size-inclusive health promotion. This includes:

• recognising weight stigma as a public health issue
• increasing government and industry funding for size-inclusive health promotion
• creating, reviewing and updating health policies to be size-inclusive.

Progressing size-inclusive health promotion requires action from government, health-care providers, policymakers, researchers, community organisations and beyond. Ultimately, we all have a role to play in reducing weight stigma.

Evangeline Gardiner, PhD Candidate in Public Health, The University of Queensland

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

“No” may be one of the hardest words for parents to say to a young child.

No, we’re not buying that.

No, you can’t have my phone.

Many parents dread the tears, arguments or tantrums that can follow when a toddler or preschooler is denied something they want.

But what if a being upset is not a sign something has gone wrong?

It’s good to hear no

Big feelings are part of life and part of growing up. Developmental psychology and neuroscience research suggests saying “no” to children helps them experience reasonable limits and boundaries.

Experiencing a “no” is an important part of how children learn to regulate emotions, cope with frustration and build resilience.

Children begin learning how to manage their emotions from infancy. The emotional regulation skills they develop during the toddler years and beyond can have a lasting influence on how they cope with challenges, build relationships and succeed at school.

What is emotional regulation?

Emotional regulation is not the ability to avoid difficult feelings. It is the ability to experience emotions, understand them, and gradually learn how to manage them.

Children develop these skills through repeated experiences of disappointment, frustration, excitement and waiting, with the support of trusted adults.

So the challenge for parents is not to avoid no, it’s to help children learn how to navigate it.

Why children need boundaries

Research shows certain parenting approaches can help children develop the ability to manage their attention, behaviour and emotions.

This involves experiencing reasonable limits – or the word, “no”. For example, “no, you can’t eat the whole container of crackers”. Or “no, you can’t climb on the car”.

Rather than protecting children from every difficult feeling, parents guide children through frustration and help them learn setbacks, disappointment and delayed gratification are manageable parts of life.

Some parenting styles (such as permissive parenting) combine warmth and responsiveness with a lack of clear boundaries. Children are given significant freedom, with few expectations or limits placed on their behaviour. While this style is well-intentioned, studies suggest it may be associated with higher levels of behavioural problems and anxiety in children.

How to say no in the moment

When saying “no” to a toddler or preschooler be clear and confident.

Avoid turning it into a negotiation. Instead of saying “maybe later” or “not right now,” try “no, we are not buying chocolate today”.

Be empathetic and acknowledge your child’s feelings. Try saying, “I can see you are angry/sad/disappointed because you really wanted the chocolate.” And follow through, “My answer is still no”.

If a parent repeatedly says no and then gives in after persistent protesting, children receive a clear message: if they keep asking, the answer may change.

So, how can you help build your child’s skills around “no”?

Talk about feelings you see in books and movies

This helps give your child the vocabulary to talk about their feelings. For example,

Peppa Pig looks really upset. Why do you think she is crying?

Model regulating your own emotions

When you get angry about something show your child how you are taking deep breaths to calm down.

Research shows children learn emotion regulation not only through what adults tell them, but also by watching how adults manage their own emotions.

Co-regulate with your child

This is a parenting strategy where you use warm and responsive interactions to help a child manage their emotions.

For example, if your child is having a tantrum, stay calm and don’t react straight away. Take a minute to breathe if you are about to lose your cool.

You could say “I see you are really disappointed we have to leave the playground.” Sit near your child and offer comfort if they welcome it. Maintain the boundary by saying, “I know you wanted to stay longer but it is time to go home.”

A child who hears, “I can see you’re upset, and I’m here with you,” while the boundary remains in place learns two powerful lessons: their feelings are accepted, and they are capable of coping with them

Act it out

When things are calm, you can role play different emotional reactions to a “no”. Research shows engagement in pretend play can improve children’s ability to control impulses and manage emotions.

For example, parents can use pretend play with teddies, dolls or toy figures to rehearse everyday situations where a child might hear “no”. A parent might role-play a trip to the park and have the adult character say, “It’s time to go home now. We can’t stay any longer.”

The child can then act out how the character feels and responds. These playful conversations provide opportunities to explore emotions such as frustration, disappointment or anger, while helping children develop the language and strategies needed to manage them.

Praise the behaviour you want

If leaving the playground often ends in tears or protests, avoid treating the emotional reaction as bad behaviour that needs punishment.

Instead, support your child through their disappointment and recognise moments when they cope successfully. For example, “Well done, I can see how you hopped off the swing really quickly today.”

This works because children are more likely to repeat behaviours that receive positive attention and encouragement.

Check your expectations

It is unreasonable to expect children will always accept a “no” without becoming upset. Their brains are still developing the systems responsible for impulse control and emotional regulation

For example, it is unreasonable to suddenly tell a three year old “no, you can’t watch another episode of Bluey – it’s time for a bath” without some warning. Even an adult would struggle to respond calmly when something you are enjoying suddenly ends. Instead, try giving a five minute warning.

The bigger picture

When parents say “no” to hold a reasonable boundary while acknowledging a child’s feelings, they send an important message.

Over time, children learn they can experience disappointment, feel upset, recover and move on.

Fiona Boylan, Associate Professor, School of Education, Edith Cowan University

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

The Reserve Bank of Australia has raised the cash rate to 4.85% from 4.6% – its highest level since the global financial crisis in late 2008.

It’s also the fifth interest rate increase this year, bringing the total increase to 1.25 percentage points since February.

Asked if the RBA would lift rates again at coming meetings, RBA Governor Michele Bullock said, “I don’t know what the next move will be”. She noted the last couple of rate hikes “haven’t even started to flow through yet”.

So it is probably a good point to just take stock for a minute and see what comes in, in terms of the data, to see if we’re travelling more or less in line with the forecasts.

Bullock said the RBA was trying to balance curbing inflation with not tipping the country into a recession “if we can avoid it”. But she also acknowledged Australia’s sluggish economy:

is going to make people feel like it’s a recession, because they feel poorer, their spending can’t grow very quickly because their incomes aren’t growing very quickly.

Here’s what the latest rates move will mean for homeowners, jobs and the wider economy.

What does it mean for mortgages?

The latest increase will add about A$120 a month to repayments on a $731,000 mortgage – the average size of a new owner-occupier home loan in Australia . This is assuming lenders pass on the increase in full.

In total, the five rate increases from this year will add about $600 a month to average repayments.

The decision to lift rates wasn’t as simple as anticipated. The Reserve Bank board was split: six members voted for an increase, while three voted to keep the cash rate on hold at 4.60%.

Bad news on inflation and jobs

Most concerningly, the RBA has now substantially revised up its inflation forecasts. Inflation is now expected to remain elevated through much of 2027, returning to the top of the RBA’s 2–3% target range only in late 2027. This is nine months later than previously expected.

In its decision statement, the RBA warned:

inflation is now expected to remain above 3% for the coming year and there is an increasing risk that higher inflation expectations will become embedded.

The central bank now also expects Australia’s unemployment rate will rise more than it previously expected, reaching 5.1% at the end of 2028. It’s already at a five-year high of 4.7%.

What forced the RBA’s hand

The latest inflation figures, released last week, meant the bank’s decision was widely expected.

Annual headline inflation rose from 4% in August to 4.3% in September. The RBA’s preferred measure of “underlying inflation” – also known as the “trimmed mean”, which trims away the sharpest price rises or falls – also increased from 3.5% to 3.6%.

Both remain well above the RBA’s target of keeping inflation within 2–3%.

What’s driving inflation beyond oil?

Higher global oil prices, driven by the ongoing conflict in the Middle East, have contributed to inflation. Australians’ fuel prices rose 9.4% in September alone.

But oil prices are not the whole story.

Inflation in “non-tradable goods and services” – from construction and electricity, to medical treatments and restaurant meals, the prices of which are largely determined by domestic conditions – reached 4.5% in September. This suggests local inflation pressures remain significant.

Rapid investment in artificial intelligence and data centres is also pushing up prices for technology-related goods.

As Bullock stressed in her Tuesday media conference, higher interest rates cannot directly reduce global oil prices. But they can dampen household spending and business investment, easing domestic inflation pressures.

They can also help prevent higher fuel and transport costs from spreading into broader prices and wages. Persistent inflation can prompt workers to demand higher wages, as well as businesses raising prices further.

By raising rates again, the RBA aims to prevent inflation from becoming entrenched.

Risks of going too hard on rates

Another rate increase may be justified, but it will come at a cost. Higher mortgage repayments leave households with less money to spend. Higher borrowing costs discourage business investment and hiring.

There are already signs of economic weakness. Household spending stalled in August. National housing prices fell 1.2% in October: their seventh consecutive monthly decline.

The RBA has acknowledged the economy is slowing. Its latest forecasts anticipate weaker economic growth over the coming year, with higher interest rates and falling housing prices weighing on household consumption and housing investment.

However, business investment is expected to remain relatively strong, partly driven by data centres.

Interest rate changes affect the economy with a lag. This means the full impact of previous rate increases is yet to be felt.

The vast majority of Australian mortgage holders have variable rate loans. As higher repayments squeeze household budgets, reduced spending takes time to affect businesses, employment and inflation.

This creates a difficult balancing act. If the RBA raises rates too slowly, inflation could remain above target for longer. But excessive rate hikes risk weakening growth and increasing unemployment.

The RBA’s challenge is particularly difficult when inflation is partly driven by global supply shocks, which higher interest rates cannot directly address.

Any more rate rises to go?

Immediately after the rate rise, the financial market was tipping a 50-50 chance of a follow-up rate increase to more than 5%.

With underlying inflation still above the RBA’s 2–3% target range, another rate rise remains possible at the bank’s upcoming December 7–8 meeting, or else subsequent meetings from February next year.

But as the RBA governor made clear on Tuesday, another rate rise is not inevitable. The RBA’s six–three split vote on raising rates suggests differing views within its board about the need for further increases.

The cumulative effects of this year’s five rate increases are substantial. The RBA has signalled it may allow more time for them to work through the economy.

For now, Australian borrowers should not expect interest rate relief anytime soon.

Stella Huangfu, Associate Professor, School of Economics, University of Sydney

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

For home owners, making sure you’re on a competitive interest rate hasn’t been this important to your household budget in years.

On Tuesday, the Reserve Bank of Australia lifted the official cash rate for the fifth time in 2026, pushing it to 4.85% – higher than it’s been since 2008.

That rate hike came just a day after property research group Cotality reported national house prices had fallen for a seventh consecutive month, with home values declining at the fastest rate of the past 40 years.

If you’re looking for a better home loan deal, here are three things worth considering first. And if you’re starting to wonder how you’ll afford higher repayments, it’s important to know when to call your bank for help.

1. Compare your rate – and don’t forget fees

Before Tuesday’s rate hike, you could get variable rates as low as 6.09% with a non-bank lender or 6.35–6.7% with a mainstream bank. So assuming most banks pass on this week’s 0.25 basis point rate rise in full, the rate for a basic variable loan from a major bank should soon be about 6.6–7.0%.

If your loan rate is higher than that, it’s worth asking for a better deal from your own bank or exploring refinancing with a new lender.

Banks often advertise lower rates to attract new customers, so check what your current lender is currently advertising.

However, you do need to make sure you’re comparing the right loan type and if it has the features you want. For instance, if having an offset or redraw account is important, you need to specifically search for and compare those options.

You also need to check for loan discharge fees, early repayment penalties and other fees from your existing lender. Those will be in your current loan documents, or else ask your bank.

Check if there are monthly or annual fees you need to factor in paying with a new loan or lender.

Once you have those details, you can use the federal government’s free Moneysmart mortgage calculator to get a better sense of whether you would actually save money by switching lenders.

2. Has your property value changed?

When a bank is assessing your home loan, they look at the “loan-to-value” (LVR) ratio: how much you’re asking to borrow as a percentage of the value of the property. The lower the LVR, the lower the risk to the bank.

If you need to borrow more than 80% of the value of your property, you’ll be seen as a riskier customer and may have to pay mortgage insurance. This can cost thousands.

Australia has seen such strong house price increases in recent years that most people who bought a home even a few years ago are still likely to be ahead on property values compared to when they originally bought.

Even if the current property price downturn reached 15% – even more than Westpac’s latest forecast of a 10.9% fall for the year to March 2027 – it would only see prices fall back to their level in early 2024.

But those who bought their home in the last 12–18 months should take particular care – especially if they bought a home with a deposit of 20% or less. Lower property values could make it harder to refinance with a new lender, or reprice their existing loan with their own bank.

You can enter your address into realestate.com.au or Domain to get a sense of a current price range for your home. While these estimates are only rough, they do use similar measures to what banks would consider, such as recent sales in the area.

3. Could you pay 3% more in rates?

Under official Australian lending rules, all banks must assess a borrower’s capacity to repay their home loan, including with what’s known as a “3% minimum serviceability buffer”.

With typical variable home loan rates set to move at about 6.6–7% per year after this latest rate rise, lenders will have to check your ability to pay rates of even 9.6–10%.

Now, call your bank or mortgage broker

Once you have an idea of the best rates around, roughly what your property is currently worth, and whether you’d pass the 3% “serviceability buffer” test, you’re in a much better position to call your bank and talk to their home lending staff.

With home loan applications dropping, banks don’t want to lose many customers. So as a first step, have a list of specific, comparable rates. Ask if they can match those.

Alternatively, if you use a mortgage broker, doing some basic homework can give you more confidence you’re being offered the best deals available.

Need help? Don’t wait

Most Australians borrow with one of the big four banks – and most (85–88%) are actually still ahead on home loan repayments.

But according to recent Canstar analysis, the remaining 12–15% of big four bank customers don’t have that savings buffer.

If that’s you, or you’re worried about the latest rate rise, call your bank’s home lending team. Explain your situation.

They may be able to modify your loan: from making it interest-only for a period, or extending the term of the loan.

Doing that comes with downsides too: the longer you’re repaying your loan, the more interest you’ll pay.

But discuss your options with your bank or broker. Don’t wait until you’re missing payments to seek help.

You can also seek free advice from the National Debt Helpline (1800 007 007).

Disclaimer: this is general information only and not to be taken as financial advice.

Shaun Bond, Professor of Finance, UQ Business School, The University of Queensland

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