This technology is developed using AI models that analyze short audio samples to create a digital voice replica.

In entertainment, voice cloning is used to create multilingual content, as seen with ElevenLabs' tool that can clone voices in various languages, enhancing global media reach.

It also aids in creating engaging experiences in gaming, as demonstrated by Stellaris using AI-generated voices for characters.

For accessibility, voice cloning helps in education by providing audio content in different languages, improving language comprehension and pronunciation.

It also supports individuals with speech conditions by offering a voice for communication.

Scammers use voice cloning to impersonate individuals, such as executives, to deceive businesses into transferring funds.

This has led to legal implications, with the FCC ruling that AI-generated voices fall under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, empowering authorities to combat voice cloning scams.

Companies like ElevenLabs and OpenAI emphasize ethical use and consent from original speakers to prevent misuse.

Real-world controversies, such as Scarlett Johansson's legal action against OpenAI for unauthorized voice use, highlight these challenges.

This technology is developed using AI models that analyze short audio samples to create a digital voice replica.

Title:

Content: OpenAI, the creators of ChatGPT, provided a glimpse into their latest artificial intelligence (AI) innovation on Friday—a tool known as Voice Engine, capable of generating “natural-sounding speech” and mimicking human voices with remarkable accuracy. According to OpenAI’s blog post, Voice Engine can produce lifelike speech from just a single 15-second audio sample, closely resembling the original speaker.

This cutting-edge AI tool has far-reaching applications, including reading assistance, content translation, and providing a voice for individuals who are nonverbal or afflicted by speech conditions. Despite its potential benefits, OpenAI acknowledges the serious risks associated with Voice Engine, particularly in an election year.

Development of Voice Engine began in late 2022, with private testing conducted among a select group of trusted partners starting late last year. OpenAI stresses that these partners adhere to stringent usage policies, ensuring explicit consent from the original speaker and prohibiting unauthorized impersonation.

To maintain transparency, any audio generated by Voice Engine is watermarked to aid in tracing its origin. OpenAI advocates for widespread deployment of voice authentication to verify the original speaker’s consent and suggests implementing a “no-go voice list” to prevent the creation of voices resembling prominent figures.

Moreover, OpenAI recommends phasing out voice-based authentication for sensitive information access, such as bank accounts. Despite these precautions, the company remains cautious about releasing Voice Engine more broadly.

OpenAI aims to foster a dialogue on the responsible deployment of synthetic voices, considering societal adaptation to these advancements. Based on ongoing discussions and test results, the company will make informed decisions regarding the technology’s widespread deployment.

The unveiling of Voice Engine comes amid escalating concerns surrounding AI-generated deepfakes and their potential to propagate misinformation, particularly in the context of elections. As OpenAI navigates the ethical and societal implications of Voice Engine, the tech community awaits further insights into the future of this transformative AI tool.

By Impact Lab

Title:

Content: Language No Barrier: New AI tool can clone voice and make it say anything in multiple languages

Imagine former US President Donald Trump speaking in flawless Hindi. A new AI voice cloning tool by ElevenLabs can clone voices and make them say anything in a bunch of different languages. All it needs is a three-second sample clip and a bit of text as the prompt.

Mehul Reuben Das May 03, 2023 13:42:20 IST

Imagine former US President Donald Trump speaking in flawless Hindi. A new AI voice cloning tool by ElevenLabs can clone voices and make them say anything in a bunch of different languages. All it needs is a three-second sample clip and a bit of text as the prompt.

As advanced as AI-based voice cloning has been, there were a few limitations to it. For example, voice generators were mainly bound by the language of the source they were trained in or rather the language of the prompt that was given to them. Now, ElevenLabs, an American AI software developing company has come up with a tool that does away with that limitation.

ElevenLabs’ new AI tool can clone the voice of a person and make it say anything in a bunch of different languages. All it needs is a clear voice sample of about 3 seconds, although it also suggests that the longer the sample, the better will be the results. The new tool even manages to maintain the speaker’s original tone of voice.

Limitless possibilities
The creators expect that this would ‘extend the possibilities’ in a variety of industries such as publishing, gaming creation, and media. “Introducing Eleven Multilingual v1: Our New Speech Synthesis Model! We’re thrilled to launch our new model supporting seven new languages: French, German, Hindi, Italian, Polish, Portuguese, and Spanish.”

“This advancement expands the horizons for creators, game developers, and publishers, and it paves the way for using generative media to create more localized, accessible, and imaginative content,” the company said.

Following the announcement, Twitter was flooded with comments, with users testing the software on various famous faces.

To demonstrate just how capable the new voice cloning AI tool is, Eluna AI, a platform for AI-content creators experimented with a sample clip of former US President Donald Trump.

In their demo, Eluna AI showcased a small clip of Donald Trump, speaking in his native tongue, English, followed by French, Spanish, German, Hindi and Italian, almost perfectly. The generated samples even gets the accent right, almost if he was a native speaker of the new target language.

Another user changed David Attenborough’s voice to German while the BBC broadcaster discussed the prospects of AI. “With this tool, anyone can do it,” stated the Twitter user. “It’s also worth noting that fraudsters will undoubtedly exploit this one.”

ElevenLabs says that its model was designed to understand the emotion and reasoning underlying words in order to produce natural-sounding and persuasive audio. ElevenLabs has said that some numerals and symbols are currently spoken wrongly, but that it is striving to rectify this.

Who is this new tool meant to help?
The US-based company believes its technology will be valuable in a variety of areas, including education and journalism.

Game developers and publishers can build engaging, localised experiences for worldwide audiences, breaking through language barriers and connecting with players and listeners to maximise engagement and efficiency while maintaining quality and accuracy.

“Educational institutions now have the ability to develop audio content for varied users in their target languages, enhancing language comprehension and even pronunciation abilities, as well as responding to different teaching methods and learning demands,” says the report.

Because of the model’s capacity to produce unique character-like voices, audiobook and content developers may also find it beneficial.

The conundrum of AI voice genertors
Despite its benefits, ElevenLabs’ launch comes amid widespread concern about the wave of new voice cloning technology. An unidentified TikTok user went popular last month after sharing an AI-generated Drake song starring The Weeknd.

It sparked concerns about the grey area of AI-created music and whether it constitutes a copyright violation. Nonetheless, ElevenLabs claims to be ‘fully committed’ to respecting creators’ rights in the midst of technological advancements.

“At Eleven, we think that we should seek to make the best use of emerging technology, but not at any expense,” it stated.

“As we create them, we make every effort to put suitable controls in place that reduce the possibility of detrimental abuse. With this in mind, we are entirely committed to both protecting intellectual property rights and taking action against infringement.”

Read all the Latest NewsTrending NewsCricket NewsBollywood News,
India News and Entertainment News here. Follow us on FacebookTwitter and Instagram.

Updated Date:

also read

World

Music labels are worried because of AI, thanks to a surprising new song ft. Drake X The Weeknd

Someone used AI to create a whole new song featuring Drake and The Weeknd. But because the singers never sang the song, artists and music labels are worried, how AI voice modulation and AI-generated songs can disrupt the industry.

World

Artificial Imposter: 47% of Indian phone users have experienced AI voice scams, highest in the world

About half of Indian adults, or 47%, have experienced AI voice scams, nearly double the global average of 25%. Furthermore, nearly 69% of adults say they can't differentiate between a real and an AI-generated voice.

What is necessary for voice cloning to work?

What is necessary for voice cloning to work?

In entertainment, voice cloning is used to create multilingual content, as seen with ElevenLabs' tool that can clone voices in various languages, enhancing global media reach.

Title:

Content: Advertisment

China Media Group Debuts AI-dubbed English Documentary, Pioneering Global Communication

China Media Group launches its first AI-dubbed English documentary, enhancing global reach and fostering international understanding through advanced AI technology.

Aqsa Younas Rana
Updated On
New Update

In a groundbreaking move, China Media Group has launched its first AI-dubbed English documentary, marking a significant milestone in the use of artificial intelligence for global media outreach. This innovative approach to dubbing not only showcases the advancements in AI technology but also underscores China's ambitions to foster better international communication and understanding. Through this initiative, the documentary, originally produced in Mandarin, has been made accessible to a broader English-speaking audience, enhancing its global reach and impact.

Advertisment

Revolutionizing Content Accessibility

The application of AI in dubbing the documentary into English reflects a growing trend in leveraging technology to bridge language barriers. Similar to the educational advancements discussed in 'Voice Cloning in Education: Bridging Language Gaps in Learning Environments,' this initiative by China Media Group capitalizes on the potential of AI voice cloning technology. By generating lifelike digital replicas of human voices, the documentary's AI-dubbed version maintains the authenticity of the original narration while making it understandable for English-speaking viewers. This technological leap not only improves accessibility but also ensures the delivery of content with emotional depth and cultural nuances intact.

The launch of this AI-dubbed documentary serves as a testament to China's commitment to enhancing global dialogue and cultural exchange. By removing language barriers, China Media Group is effectively broadening the documentary's audience, enabling people from different parts of the world to gain insights into Chinese culture, history, and perspectives. This initiative aligns with the broader objective of promoting mutual understanding and respect among diverse global communities, paving the way for more inclusive and informed international discourse.

Advertisment

Setting New Standards in Media Production

China Media Group's pioneering use of AI technology in documentary dubbing sets new standards for media production and distribution. It illustrates the potential of AI to transform traditional media practices, making content more accessible and engaging for global audiences. As AI technology continues to evolve, it is likely to open up further possibilities for creating multilingual content, thereby enhancing the reach and impact of media across borders. This development also raises important considerations regarding the ethical use of voice cloning technology, underscoring the need for guidelines that ensure its responsible application in media and beyond.

As we reflect on the implications of this technological advancement, it becomes clear that AI-dubbed media content holds significant promise for fostering international understanding and cooperation. By making diverse cultural and educational materials available in multiple languages, we can build a more connected and informed world. The initiative by China Media Group not only highlights the practical applications of AI in media but also invites us to contemplate the future of global communication in an increasingly digital age.

Advertisment
Advertisment

It also aids in creating engaging experiences in gaming, as demonstrated by Stellaris using AI-generated voices for characters.

Title:

Content: Skip to main content
If you click on a link and make a purchase we may receive a small commission. Read our editorial policy.

Stellaris director insists “ethical use of AI is very important to us” after generating voices in latest DLC

“We're pretty good at exploring dystopian sci-fi and don't want to end up there ourselves”

The director of Paradox’s grand sci-fi strategy game Stellaris has insisted that the studio’s use of any AI-generated assets will be “ethical”, after revealing that latest expansion The Machine Age features AI voices for characters and used AI-generated art and text during its development.

Stephen ‘Eladrin’ Muray took to the game’s subreddit to respond to discussion and concerns from players about The Machine Age’s disclaimer on Steam that “generative AI technologies [were used] during the creation of some assets”, including two voices - an in-universe AI antagonist and player advisor - heard in the final release.

Muray clarified that the developers didn’t use any AI-generated artwork found in the final expansion or for making concept art (“We've got a couple of awesome concept artists on staff for that”), while acknowledging that “a couple” of AI-generated images might have been part of the team’s mood boards or similar during development.

“Personally, I use image generation tools to make basic sketches of things the System Designers and I are thinking of since I very much suck at art, but am pretty decent at getting computers to do what we're thinking,” Murray said. “The artists then take our ideas and might or might not use them as inspiration to make final assets. None of those design images go into the game.”

Murray also sought to explain the Steam disclaimer that “typically [the use of AI technologies] involves the ideation of content and visual reference material”, mentioning that the team use AI-generated text to “break writer’s block” by - per Muray’s example - asking for suggestions for what a player might find in a mysterious box and using those prompts as “inspiration”.

“None of the results or generated text go into the game,” Muray repeated, with the game’s disclaimer additionally claiming that “these elements represent a minor component of the overall development”.

What’s likely to be more contentious are AI-created elements that are found in the final release, notably two voices - the Synthetic Queen Cetana, who is an in-universe AI, plus an advisor to the player - generated by AI.

Muray insisted that the developers have “got some strict guidelines in place on how we can use AI tools legally and ethically that we abide by”, claiming that the human voice actors upon whom the generative AI model was based explicitly signed up for their use in AI and receive royalties for any AI voice lines created based on their samples.

“Ethical use of AI technology is very important to us - we're pretty good at exploring dystopian sci-fi and don't want to end up there ourselves,” Muray wrote, adding that a forthcoming developer diary would further detail the use of AI-generated voices.

Stellaris, of course, is not the first game to make use of the controversial tech, with multiplayer shooter The Finals generating commentary using AI and Uncover the Smoking Gun dressing up a ChatGPT text prompt as a murder-mystery game. Still, AI remains especially divisive - and AI-generated voices especially so, with the decision of actors’ union SAG-AFTRA to permit AI voice replicas earlier this year rightfully upsetting the humans upon whose talent and hard work the soulless models are built - often without due recompense.

That ongoing controversy can already been seen in The Machine Age’s recent Steam reviews, with a number of players criticising the decision to utilise generative AI in any form - despite Muray’s belief that it’s been handled in an “ethical” way.

Read this next

Eleven Labs is extending its voice cloning services for which industries?

For accessibility, voice cloning helps in education by providing audio content in different languages, improving language comprehension and pronunciation.

How will AI Voice help educators with building courses?

How will educational institutions benefit from developing AI voice audio content for languages learners?

Enhance language comprehension
Enhance pronunciation abilities

It also supports individuals with speech conditions by offering a voice for communication.

Scammers use voice cloning to impersonate individuals, such as executives, to deceive businesses into transferring funds.

Title:

Content: Aug 31, 2022

Now, software can replicate your boss’s voice and tell you what to do

HTML EMBED:
COPY
"Deepfake" audio technology is here, and scammers are taking advantage.

If you’re listening to or have already listened to the beginning of this episode, you probably noticed that the voice introducing Kimberly Adams sounded a bit off, right?

That’s because it’s an audio “deepfake,” and it was created by Yisroel Mirsky at the Offensive AI Research Lab through a process called voice cloning.

It uses software to study a short sample of someone’s voice and create a deepfake, which in this case took only 15 seconds to generate, according to Mirsky.

It’s far from a perfect replica, but it turns out that scammers recently started to use deepfake audio for telephone scams and in some cases have succeeded.

Marketplace’s Kimberly Adams recently spoke with Kyle Alspach, a cybersecurity reporter with Protocol, about how the tech behind audio deepfakes works and how they’re being used in phone scams. The following is an edited transcript of their conversation.

Kyle Alspach: The technology involves having [artificial intelligence], deep learning, and it takes an audio sample of someone’s voice. It can be as little as three seconds, and it trains itself on the way that this person sounds. And it creates a model that can then be used to replicate that person’s voice. The current way that it works is you have to use text to speech, which is just you type in a phrase, and then it speaks using the cloned voice.

Kimberly Adams: How are these audio deepfakes being used in scams?

Alspach: So they’re, at least we know, being used to target businesses at this point, especially larger businesses. Someone will call up pretending to be someone else with someone else’s voice, typically some kind of executive or someone’s boss, and ask them to transfer funds or ask them for password credentials, that kind of thing. And in some cases, they have been successful.

Adams: Do you have a sense of how common audio deepfakes are now? And where do experts in the industry see it going?

Alspach: You know, among the larger businesses, I think more and more of them are starting to see these because they’re really ripe targets for this kind of thing. But right now, I don’t think that it’s something that a lot of people are seeing, but it is the beginning of this kind of technology being used in this way.

Adams: What do cybersecurity experts suggest that regular people or businesses do to avoid falling for these deepfake audio scams?

Alspach: For business purposes, for instance, if you’re going to transfer money, you might want to add some additional steps to that process and involve someone saying some kind of challenge phrase or something like that, that everyone’s agreed on beforehand, [to] prevent that from happening. But the biggest thing is just to be aware that it might happen to you and to pay attention when someone calls you up and make sure that it actually sounds the way you would expect, and they are asking you for things that they normally would be asking you for. It’s really at this point kind of a low-tech approach to defending against this kind of thing. But really, it’s just creating the possibility in your mind of this happening. And I guess, unfortunately, you kind of have to become more skeptical now when people call you up.

You can read more of Alspach’s reporting on audio deepfakes here.

Yisroel Mirsky told us that the tech he used to generate the deepfake audio for Alspach’s article, and for our show, is “relatively old.”

Alspach also mentioned in his piece that there is an open-source voice cloning tool online that anyone — even scammers can download and potentially use.

But as we found out, getting that software to work isn’t a simple process of downloading and hitting the Install button.

Tech barriers can stop you at a number of steps in the process. Like, if you don’t know the coding language Python or if your computer isn’t powerful enough, you’ll likely be unable to use it, as our producer Daniel Shin discovered.

The future of this podcast starts with you.

Every day, the “Marketplace Tech” team demystifies the digital economy with stories that explore more than just Big Tech. We’re committed to covering topics that matter to you and the world around us, diving deep into how technology intersects with climate change, inequity, and disinformation.

As part of a nonprofit newsroom, we’re counting on listeners like you to keep this public service paywall-free and available to all.

Support “Marketplace Tech” in any amount today and become a partner in our mission.

The team

Michael Lipkin Senior Producer
Stephanie Hughes Producer
Jesus Alvarado Assistant Producer

What do cybersecurity experts believe about the use of synthesized voice?

could become a popular method of attacking banks and financial services

This has led to legal implications, with the FCC ruling that AI-generated voices fall under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, empowering authorities to combat voice cloning scams.

Title:

Content: Moving at rapid speed, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has just announced its unanimous adoption of a new Declaratory Ruling finding that voice calls using artificial intelligence (AI)-generated voices fall under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).

The ruling takes effect immediately and gives state attorneys general powerful new tools to go after voice cloning scams. Under FCC rules, telemarketers that use robocalls subject to the TCPA are required to obtain prior express written consent from the consumer unless an exemption applies. The TCPA has always prohibited the use of both prerecorded and artificial voices but advances in AI-generated voices have prompted the FCC to specifically address their use.

In recent years, scammers and other parties have begun using AI to create fake and even "cloned" artificial voices, including those of celebrities, politicians, and even a call recipient's family member. In this election season, there has been increasing concern about the use of voice clones to engage in voter suppression schemes.

Concerned about the potential malevolent uses of these AI-generated voice calls, the FCC issued a Notice of Inquiry (NOI) in November on the topic of "Implications of Artificial Intelligence Technologies on Protecting Consumers from Unwanted Robocalls and Robotexts." In the NOI, the FCC asked questions regarding the use of "AI-influenced" technologies in robocalling. A coalition of 26 state attorneys general, as well as a telecommunication carrier trade group, strongly urged the FCC to take action to give the attorneys general clear authority to act against AI-generated robocall violators.

The FCC now has made clear that the use of voice cloning in telephone calls and texts falls within the FCC's statutory authority under the TCPA. A major intent of the ruling is to communicate that the TCPA "does not allow for any carve-out of technologies that purport to provide the equivalent of a live agent, thus preventing unscrupulous businesses from attempting to exploit any perceived ambiguity in our TCPA rules."

As FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel explained, "with this Declaratory Ruling, we will have another tool to go after voice cloning scams and get this junk off the line."

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Companies like ElevenLabs and OpenAI emphasize ethical use and consent from original speakers to prevent misuse.

Real-world controversies, such as Scarlett Johansson's legal action against OpenAI for unauthorized voice use, highlight these challenges.

Title:

Content: "I was forced to hire legal counsel," actress Scarlett Johansson responds after Microsoft partner OpenAI 'clones' her voice for ChatGPT

What you need to know

  • Recently, Microsoft partner OpenAI demonstrated new AI tools that come with natural language conversational dialogue.
  • The "voice" chosen sounded eerily similar to Samantha in the AI Netflix movie "Her," voiced by Scarlett Johansson of Marvel Avengers fame.
  • OpenAI mysteriously pulled the voice yesterday, likely ahead of planned legal action by Johansson.
  • Today, Johansson issued a statement confirming that OpenAI had essentially begged her for the rights to her voice, despite claiming it had used other voice actors in a large and defensive article.
  • Microsoft is partnered with OpenAI for language models, following a multi-year, multi-billion dollar investment.

Shared exclusively via NPR, Marvel Avengers alumni Scarlett Johansson has reacted angrily to OpenAI's seeming theft of her voice to power its new AI assistants. In the statement, Johansson shares that she has sought legal counsel, and will be persuing action against the firm which could have widespread implications for the legalities of ChatGPT, Microsoft Copilot, and similar technologies.

Microsoft's Copilot assistant is powered by OpenAI's language models, based on GPT-4. Last week, OpenAI and CEO Sam Altman demonstrated the latest version of GPT, which feels like a large leap in natural language reproduction. However, users noted the strange familiarity in the AI's voice. Similar to the AI from the Netflix movie "Her," OpenAI's own artificial assistant sounded eerily similar to Scarlett Johansson.

"I was shocked, angered and in disbelief that Mr. Altman would pursue a voice that sounded so eerily similar to mine that my closest friends and news outlets could not tell the difference."

See the full statement below.

Seemingly aware they were about to get sued, OpenAI pulled the voice technology yesterday, and released a large and very defensive tranche explaining how it arrived at the oddly familiar tones. OpenAI doesn't seem to think its defence will hold up in a court of law, however, given that it has fully pulled the voice work despite claiming it was produced from 400 submissions and bespoke recordings at its HQ.

OpenAI drags Microsoft into murky waters

The pace of development of AI is at complete odds with the pace of legislative interest. Bureaucracy-laden governments in the west are utterly unprepared to deal with the deluge of issues artificial intelligence is going to cause with regards to copyright, false information, and beyond — even before we consider how entire industries will vanish over night.

Today at Microsoft's AI and Surface Event, the firm unveiled a range of new features that Microsoft Copilot will produce, including in-game answers in Minecraft, as well as the ability to recall previous files. Microsoft has emphasized that its AI systems won't send your data up to the cloud unless you explicitly opt-in. This is all thanks to new NPU neural processing units that will perform AI tasks on local hardware, as part of Microsoft's new Copilot+ AI PC initiative.

AI systems like the voice powering OpenAI's ChatGPT tools or indeed, ChatGPT itself, requires masses of human-created data in order for computers to remix the information and reproduce it. That requires millions of articles, comments, photos, videos, and other types of content "borrowed" by Microsoft and its partners, without any form of compensation. This potential Scarlett Johansson legal action is just the tip of a murky legal iceberg that Microsoft potentially finds itself directly in front of.

Co-Managing Editor

Jez Corden is a Managing Editor at Windows Central, focusing primarily on all things Xbox and gaming. Jez is known for breaking exclusive news and analysis as relates to the Microsoft ecosystem while being powered by tea. Follow on Twitter @JezCorden and listen to his XB2 Podcast, all about, you guessed it, Xbox!


In the 21st century, the term "Luddite" is often used to describe individuals who resist new technologies, though historically, Luddites were not against technology itself but opposed specific technologies that threatened their livelihoods.

For instance, the rapid adoption of AI and automation can lead to job displacement, as seen with AI's potential to reduce hiring by automating tasks.

This fear mirrors the original Luddites' concerns about job security.

Additionally, the concentration of power in a few tech giants raises concerns about monopolistic practices and the stifling of competition, which can lead to resistance against new technologies perceived as reinforcing these dynamics.

The tech industry's focus on consumption and entertainment over meaningful engagement can also contribute to skepticism, as it may detract from addressing larger societal issues.

Moreover, the digital age has shifted focus from physical engagement to digital consumption, which some view as detrimental to societal well-being.

This shift can lead to a perception that technology prioritizes profit over people, further fueling resistance.

In the 21st century, the term "Luddite" is often used to describe individuals who resist new technologies, though historically, Luddites were not against technology itself but opposed specific technologies that threatened their livelihoods.

Title:

Content: Brian Merchant, author: “Luddites are more dangerous to the rich than Robin Hood”

The Luddites have been a great historical resource. Any showy enemy of anything that looked like technological progress has been called a Luddite. Today with generative artificial intelligence and its critics, the word has been revived. The author and journalist Brian Merchant (Iowa City, USA, 1983) saw it coming and has written a book that reviews the Luddite revolt in England at the beginning of the 19th century and its similarities with current technologies: Blood in the Machine (Blood in the Machine, currently without a planned edition in Spanish) thus explores the origins of the current revolt against big technology.

Although the book has appeared in the midst of the AI hype, Merchant began his research a decade ago: “Uber was growing and it was beginning to be seen that it was having a hard impact on taxi drivers, I heard the term Luddite from the pro-Uber sector and wrote an article titled You don't understand anything about Luddites”. Now in his book he remembers that the Luddite revolt was a labor struggle, not anti-technology, at a time when unions were prohibited. In a conversation with EL PAÍS from his residence in Los Angeles, Merchant clarifies the historical impact of the Luddites and the possible similar struggles that are being played today in Silicon Valley.

1. The Luddites were not against progress

The labor revolt over the loss of rights was more important than the destruction of textile machines: “The biggest mistake about the Luddites is to say that they were against technology and progress,” says Merchant. “They were against certain technologies because they recognized the way in which they were going to be used in their context against them as workers. It was a labor movement, against poverty, not anti-technology. The British Government began to mold them in this way almost immediately, it was keen to mock the Luddites and present the argument that they were against progress. It is very similar to how today people in positions of power in technology companies accuse those who complain about poor working conditions. It's the same story for 200 years.”

The book quotes a phrase from historian Eric Hobsbawm that explains this stage: “It was collective bargaining through riots.” According to Merchant, this tactic in a workers' struggle was very powerful for two reasons: “First, it was symbolic because everyone understood that what they were destroying was not just a machine. It was also the specific machine used to transfer wealth from the workers to the employer. Second, it was useful because they destroyed the equipment that businessmen needed.”

2. Why Robin Hood is better accepted than Ned Ludd

Ned Ludd was a legendary character. No one knows for sure if he existed. It was the legend of a teenager who would have broken the first machines at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. In 1811, rebellious workers used his legendary name to sign letters and further scare: “Ludd probably never existed. But the incarnation of it would become a mascot, an organizational tool, a wink: a powerful 19th-century meme,” Merchant writes.

See also  The Commander of the Land Forces meets in Muscat a number of Omani military leaders

Ludd lived near Nottingham (United Kingdom), like another legendary figure who has been better treated by history. There must be a reason, says Merchant: “The Luddites organized a popular and powerful rebellion. People wrote popular songs about them. They were like Robin Hood. But it is interesting that Robin Hood has endured as a positive light, while the Luddites have not. He suggests that the myth of Ned Ludd is in some ways more dangerous to the elites and the wealthy than that of Robin Hood, which is a little more nebulous and open. The Luddites say: go ahead and break the machines of your oppression. Robin Hood says: steal from the rich and give to the poor. “I think that’s a little more tolerable.”

3. How are they similar to today's problems?

The background of the book is that the history of the Luddites is similar to what happens today in Silicon Valley, where a small group of corporations dominate new technologies. “The way technologies are developed has basically not changed. You have a handful of people with access to enough capital or political influence to be able to build a factory and use automation technologies. “Back then, the most aggressive owners didn’t ask anyone how to find a way to make this a win-win.”

Merchant has received criticism for equating the great businessmen of 19th century England with 21st century America. But there are details that he does not see that far away: “The technology development process is in some ways even more undemocratic today than then. There is this immense pool of capital available to Silicon Valley innovators through venture capital. Uber wasn't profitable for 10 years, but they had access to that capital. Did anyone really like that? Did it work for workers and delivery people? Nothing mattered, they just had more money and moved on.”

See also  Just the mystery

For instance, the rapid adoption of AI and automation can lead to job displacement, as seen with AI's potential to reduce hiring by automating tasks.

Title:

Content: Many sci-fi movies have painted artificial intelligence (AI) to be an omen of humanity’s demise. The first cinematic appearance of AI was in a 1927 silent German film, “Metropolis.” Throughout the entire film, a humanlike robot had the sole intention of wreaking havoc throughout the city. Despite this initial negative depiction of AI, technology has been racing toward the development of advanced artificial intelligence. According to Forbes, “AI-focused companies raised $12 billion in 2017 alone.” In August of 2021, Elon Musk revealed that he has an aspiration to create a humanoid robot called the Tesla Bot to eliminate mundane tasks and to make the bots accessible to the public by next year. He went as far to say that the Tesla Bot could displace the labor force, rendering physical work a matter of choice. Twitter ran wild after hearing about Musk’s announcement, with many people drawing comparisons to “I, Robot,” “The Terminator” and other apocalyptic movies.

Humans have a tendency to be wary and fearful of new technology, as seen in the 19th-century Luddite movement when artisans destroyed textile machines to protect their own jobs. The fear of AI seems to be widespread, as people are unsure of what AI is capable of and the repercussions of implementing it. The reality is that AI is already implemented in multiple parts of our daily life — the introduction of the Tesla Bot is just a newer way. The threat of AI might not be the climactic, action-packed threat that we see in films. Instead, it could be a dependence on AI that threatens to lull us into complacency.

Elon Musk acknowledges that the creation of the Tesla Bot will have far-reaching impacts on the economy — an implication that is attached with all emerging AI technology. Currently, most AI can only complete the tasks they are programmed for, and since this doesn’t require true reasoning, they have earned the name of Narrow AI. The dream of AI is to transcend the limitations of Narrow AI and reach a state of autonomy where it can continuously adapt on its own with all the abilities of a human brain. This uncontrollable and irreversible state would be revered as AI “singularity.” Daron Acemoglu, an Institute Professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, found that “firms that increase their AI adoption by 1 percent reduce their hiring by approximately 1 percent.” As industries try to find more ways to implement AI technology, there will be more and more displacement of workers. Amazon’s implementation of AI into grocery stores demonstrates their ability to completely eradicate cashiers while creating a more efficient way to go grocery shopping.

Acemoglu writes, “Some economists think fears of automation and AI displacing workers are overblown. They argue that as work becomes more AI-automated, the resulting productivity gains will spearhead labor demand in other parts of the economy … even in the same firms doing AI-driven automation.” The problem is the creation of AI itself — the automation economy drives labor demands down without any hope of reviving it. Even further, software developers GitHub and OpenAI have recently unveiled an AI pair programmer named Copilot to help provide coding suggestions based on what the programmer prompts the system. Even though the software is “still a work in progress” according to TechTalks, it will continue to become more reliable and efficient as more people use the technology. The unveiling of this particular AI shows that even the jobs of programming AI are not secure. AI is able to infiltrate every industry, and if AI is able to achieve singularity, even careers such as being an author or an artist are at risk of being replaced.

Attempting to prevent the rapid implementation of AI is almost impossible at this point. Many countries in the world are racing against each other in an attempt for AI dominance, trying to cultivate an environment for these companies to grow and flourish. The reason countries are invested in the evolution of AI is because it is revered as a strategic technology that could help countries get a tactical advantage over other countries and help strengthen governance. China is a great example of this, as it invested heavily into the AI industry while simultaneously implementing it into their infrastructure. Following the release of China’s three-step program to become a world leader in AI by 2030, they have planned to create a “$2.1 billion AI-focused technology research park,” according to Forbes. We can already see China implementing AI into the military and smart cities — during the Hong Kong protests, for example, the government implemented AI surveillance to identify citizens and subsequently curb protests.

Due to the importance of AI to government entities and many other industries, AI has cemented itself as an important factor to the success of new emerging firms. Trying to eradicate AI currently would actually impede the advancement of society as a whole. Though AI does pose a lot of threats such as the displacement of workers, built-in programmer biases and implications of AI in our political and economic system, the ability of an AI outweighs the risks. Its pure speed in utilizing huge reserves of information and executing action could change the way we live. It is dependent on developers and users as a whole to protect in the manner of how AI is utilized, perhaps through legislation or creating open source AI that is accessible to everyone. Then we could all access even a simple version of an AI that would also help our personal life.

One of the methods Elon Musk proposed in combating the displacement of workers would be to introduce a universal basic income. With the introduction of a universal basic income, we could lessen the strife of structural unemployment and shift toward a different type of societal model — one that bases itself less on a capitalistic work life and more of an emphasis on the humanities and the arts. Perhaps by allowing people to have more free time and less worries about their financial security, we could spur a new renaissance. We could fear AI and allow it to control our lives, or we could act before it becomes too powerful, using AI to benefit us as a society.

Akshay Ma Kumar is a senior majoring in economics.

This fear mirrors the original Luddites' concerns about job security.

Additionally, the concentration of power in a few tech giants raises concerns about monopolistic practices and the stifling of competition, which can lead to resistance against new technologies perceived as reinforcing these dynamics.

Title:

Content: 25 mins ago - Technology

Tech's competition game change

As tech changed the world, it also changed the meaning of the word "competition."

How it works: In most other businesses, competition means several rivals are fighting to win a prize — typically, the customer's dollar.

  • To win that competition, a company might offer a better product, a lower price, or some magic brand aura people crave.
  • In the tech world, quality is often hard for users to gauge, prices for many consumer offerings are zero, and very few brands have had time to build auras.

Most tech companies still view themselves as engaged in fierce competition. They're just going after a wider and more complex set of prizes.

  • Sometime's it's scale. Sometimes it's owning a standard. Sometimes it's seizing the moment to set the course of the next technological wave or dominant platform.
  • Sometimes it's just earning a big payout for founders and investors at the right moment. And sometimes, the winner does end up with a monopoly -- but no tech firm expects that to last long.

This different understanding of competition explains the deep mindset mismatch at the heart of today's epic struggle between Silicon Valley and Washington, D.C.

  • The view from the tech corner office sees an industry in a state of constant churn and paranoia, perpetually hungry for new products and afraid that some newcomer will eat their lunch.
  • The view from the Beltway, and from many homes and small businesses outside tech, sees a handful of giants with strangleholds over key markets.

Why it matters: Whether you view the tech industry as competitive shapes whether you think tech giants need to be regulated or broken up.

  • The enormity and power of just five companies — Apple, Google, Microsoft, Amazon and Meta —have triggered the loudest monopoly alarms since the trustbusters broke up Standard Oil a century ago.

Catch up quick: Tech's history is a serial record of successive monopolies.

  • In the IBM age, one company ruled the mainframes that ran big business and government.
  • In the Microsoft age, one company ruled the personal computer operating system, and for a while the web browser, through which individuals worked.

These companies' stories established the industry's psychic underpinning: A belief that, as Intel CEO Andy Grove put it, "Only the paranoid survive."

  • You had to scan the horizon for the next paradigm shift or new platform so you could control it. Otherwise, your competitive advantage would erode and your dominance would fall to a nimbler upstart.

Yes, but: In the 21st century, tech's shape has changed.

  • In the past two decades, five companies — Apple, Microsoft, Google, Amazon and Facebook/Meta —have seized the industry's reins and held onto them with a persistence and strength that shows no sign of waning.
  • Their combined market value has hovered between $7 and $10 trillion for the last two years — roughly 23% of the value of the entire S&P 500.
  • Their products — the smartphones that have become our outboard brains, the key apps we use every day, the services that we use to work and shop and get around — shape our lives.

Be smart: The question regulators and critics keep asking today is whether these companies are entrenched in an unfair way that blocks new entrants and ideas.

  • This view — held by the leaders of the Biden administration's tech policy crew, such as Federal Trade Commission chair Lina Khan and White House adviser Tim Wu — sees today's tech landscape as a market failure.
  • The giants, they say, have created self-perpetuating monopolies in specific markets like search, mobile app distribution, online advertising, e-commerce, and social networking. They run must-use platforms that unfairly advantage their own products. They shoot down new rivals if they can, and buy them if they can't.

The bottom line: If these critics are right, then lawsuits and new regulations are needed to restore competition.

  • But tech's leaders argue that their competitive advantages edges are fragile and evanescent.
  • The way they see it, the five-way scrum of today's overall tech market means there's always some amount of consumer choice and product improvement.
Go deeper

The tech industry's focus on consumption and entertainment over meaningful engagement can also contribute to skepticism, as it may detract from addressing larger societal issues.

Title:

Content: Blog post

We cannot buy tomorrow — using stories to understand technology change

By Mark P. McDonald | December 03, 2021 | 0 Comments

tech NO logyPersonal ObservationHuman AbilityFuture of High TechDigital Society

The dynamic and accelerating rate of change, disruption, societal concerns, etc can make it difficult to see what it all means, the direction we are heading in.  Speculative fiction is one of the ways that people try to make sense out of what can appear to be senseless.  Gartner instituted a special project called “Stories from Planet B“.  The goal was to use stories and other artifacts to help stakeholders envision preferred and plausible futures in a way that is transformative, inspiring and disrupting.

Here is my story, you can find the others at “Stories from Planet B” on Gartner.com

Enjoy

Mark

YOU CANNOT BUY TOMORROW

Tara sat down, rubbing her leg to work out a cramp she had picked up on the walk from her house. She had delayed this to the last minute. “Can’t turn ten ‘till you talk to the old men,” her brother reminded her.

Tara cleared her throat. “Question: What was it like at the start?“

Response: Project 2207, Darius Senna, aged 105, recalling the founding of Pantos.

The front of the room darkened. “Tara. The name means star,” came a man’s voice from the darkness.

“Dad says it’s also a lubricant that has gone bad, ‘Tar — ahh!’”  The room got even darker.

“We call ourselves Pantos. The fifth wave of Planet B colonists, B5, like the vitamin,” the man’s voice continued.

Darius Senna walked out of the darkness. He was wearing a blue collarless shirt rolled up at the sleeves, dark pants and brown boots. Tara noticed his rough hands, and his face, lined from UV rays. A bench appeared. He sat down.

“We were not the first. The first were the explorers. They discovered Planet B, determined it could support life, and summoned us to our new home. Then came ships, filled with those who could afford to leave Earth behind.”

Senna leaned back. Tara noticed the old style comms implant on his wrist. “Six centuries ago, the English sent ships carrying goldsmiths, jewelers, governors and soldiers to Jamestown. They sought to civilize their ‘new world.’ Likewise, the first ships to Planet B carried engineers bankers, officials — the cream of a curdled civilization.”

Looking out the window, Darius continued: “Those first ships were technological marvels. Gossamer solar sails, filled with technology and terraforming equipment. They landed in the northern hemisphere of Planet B. When their technology failed, they starved, just like the colonists at Jamestown.”

He paused and looked at Tara. “After three more waves, some of them are still around, eating from waste regenerators, asking their tech why it doesn’t work. We don’t see them much. We think about them even less.” Darius leaned forward, clasping his hands, just like Tara’s father did when making a point. “We Pantos understand — the physical world feeds the digital world. When the physical does not work, the digital does not matter.”

“Old Earth technology changed in the early 21st century. It turned inward. It became obsessed with experience, entertainment and consumption.” His face hardened. “Before then, technology had made people’s lives better. Then society went digital, and consumption mattered more.”

Darius unclasped his hands. “Data replaced reason. People focused on themselves. Technology meant looking down at a screen, not up at the world around them. People thought it was wonderful. Screens made them feel better.”

He leaned back. Tara noticed the scar down the inside of his left arm. No one had scars anymore, not since the invention of Dermaplast. Darius saw her staring and, almost under his breath, said: “With their narrow datasets, myopic algorithms and self-centered beliefs, they couldn’t see what was really coming. And they never did.”

“I had just turned twenty-seven,” Darius said. He paused, lost in a memory.

He resumed, “We Pantos are not Luddites. We are some of the finest innovators and engineers humanity has ever known. Old Earth technologies were advanced, but consumptive. They were great for solving little problems. Distributing products instantaneously, keeping their users’ attention, showing each other how successful they were.”

“But when the big problems came, technology could not handle it. The heat, the drought, the pandemics, the inequalities, the authoritarian states. This was the world as it really was, not how it appeared online. Their technologies spent what resources they had, but could not create more. When their inherited wealth dried up, it all fell apart.”

“You know why we Pantos tell each other, ‘You can’t buy …”

“… Tomorrow,” Tara finished. She heard that at least ten times a month.

“Right,” Darius replied. “We say that when it’s time to get to work.”

“The ‘northerners’ brought Earth’s ethos of control and exploitation. Digital entertainment, not physical engagement. They binged on culture as they starved and froze to death. If you go up north you can see the graves of trillionaires, and screens looping videos demonstrating their importance.” Darius went silent.

Tara waited, unsure of what to do next. “If we are not the first, then when did we get here?”

Darius looked Tara directly in the face. “We came in the last wave. We came on outdated ships driven by ions. The ships were cannibalized once we landed on the southern hemisphere, far from the first four failures.”

He smiled, “The first waves came to Planet B in space limos. Pantos came in space beaters.”

“Pantos went to work. Our technology fits our hands, not our eyes. We built our homes, rather than having them printed. Building them ourselves proved we were here to stay. Doing things yourself teaches you the true costs and benefits of your actions.”

He paused for a moment, and said: “Tara, remember to feed the Briax when you get home.”

She knew. Doing builds ownership and responsibility; consuming builds nothing but your waistline.

Darius resumed: “Technology is part of our agency. Planet B sustains life, but we are building a world to ensure our minds stay broad; we think before we act. We make mistakes, like we did at Junction.”

He rubbed the inside of his left arm.

“Failure is acceptable when we learn from it. Unacceptable when it is a cost of doing business, or called an externality.”

“We stay strong, acknowledging challenges and celebrating progress. Technology encourages contribution, not consumption. Contribution brings meaning. Meaning motivates innovation and improvement. If it does not work for all of us, then it does not work well enough for any of us. We have much work to do. You know…”

“You can’t buy tomorrow,” Tara repeated, reflexively.

The room brightened. Senna was gone, as was the bench. A woman’s voice spoke up. “Congratulations, Tara. Welcome to your next decade.”

Tara stood up. As she was leaving, she thought she heard the woman say: “Another turning ten. A blessing.”

“Yes,” came Senna’s reply. “Old enough to understand, and young enough to care.”

Moreover, the digital age has shifted focus from physical engagement to digital consumption, which some view as detrimental to societal well-being.

This shift can lead to a perception that technology prioritizes profit over people, further fueling resistance.

Title:

Content: X Close

A plague of fallacies has devoured the internet This is the Golden Age of online charlatanism

The internet is a melting pot of ideas and adverts. Credit: Getty

The internet is a melting pot of ideas and adverts. Credit: Getty

June 27, 2024   6 mins

We lived, without knowing it then, on the other side of the digital chasm. I know the first time I heard the word “internet”: on a trek through Ness Woods in Northern Ireland. My father, self-taught and insatiably curious, told us about an invention that will “spread like a web across the planet, changing everything”. One of the requirements of parenthood is to be not only a rock but also a punchbag as your child tests their boundaries and pushes their luck. My sister and I, two diminutive harpies, immediately began teasing him about his crystal-ball predictions, which he weathered with his usual stoical roll of the eyes.

What fools we were.

Though Generation X were the last of the analogue humans, we had grown up with computers. But the internet was vast, exponentially so, and would impact every aspect of life. It was, to my young mind, an ecumenopolis, a colossal world city, incandescent with possibility. My first visit to an internet café was mind-blowing, as jerry-built as it was in retrospect. Long-used to relatives heading off to Boston and beyond and vanishing, it was astonishing to communicate with complete strangers in real-time, with ease and at little expense, on the other side of Earth.

It was an intoxicating force. But the rapturous delirium could not last.

The internet was to cause a rupture even deeper than the printing press, manned flight or mass electrification. And yet my feeling is that the real divide was not before and after the internet; but rather before and after its transformation from an ever-expanding cosmos of potential and its contraction into the global village where we’re now trapped. An expansionist universe collapsing into neo-feudalism. This is the story of how the market eats everything including our wildest dreams — and it does so because of a language trick that we cannot resist.

“It was an intoxicating force. But the rapturous delirium could not last.”

In pre-modern times, charlatans preyed upon superstitions, reading portents in comets or flogging bones. With the emergence of modern science came alchemists promising elixirs of youth or the transmutation of lead into gold. The Industrial Revolution gave rise to all manner of swindlers boasting mechanical and medical cure-alls. Oscilloclasts would cure any malady through radiowaves. Daffy’s Elixir could ease everything from the Vapours to King’s Evil. Coca-Cola was enough to dispel morphine addiction. Some innovators believed in their products, even when the costs were severe — the quietening syrups that sent Victorian babies into permanent sleep or revitalising Radium cures that caused jaws to crumble. Medicine shows are seen as the high-water mark of this tendency: travelling fairs of confidence tricksters who would alleviate locals of their money and naivety. Then they disappeared, absorbed into the unholy pan-global entity of 21st-century advertising.

It is difficult to accept, gazing down from the lofty heights of progress on the sinners and dupes of the past, that we reside in the Golden Age of charlatanism. We like to think we’ve developed a thick skin towards commerce — but objects are the least of our worries. It’s no longer a question of being sold dubious products.

Today’s corporations now deal in intangibles: lifestyles, philosophies, diets, self-image and ambition have all become marketable assets. They are promising us shortcuts to status, vital in an age of precarious hustling, as well as quick fixes to our innumerable economic, political and spiritual deficits. They’re selling the grift — or rather the prospect of escape from it. They’re delivered to us not by the outdatedly gauche media of billboards and television, but directly injected into social media, attuned via algorithms to our tastes and inadequacies.

I open Instagram stories and am instantly bombarded with snake-oil salespeople hawking life-changing tonics, none of which come in a bottle. I’m told my life is unfulfilled, and I believe it, as life inevitably is, and they’ve the solitary answer. And so, they arrive, following earlier errant clicks, the desire lines of my own self-betrayals. One pitch tells me I need to manifest my desires. Another to embrace moderation. A third that I need to protect my child from mobile phones. Another that I should confront my toxic masculinity. Magnesium will save me. Masturbation will steal my life-force. Today’s episode is brought to you by the letter “M”. Each is a rabbit hole of TED talks “Smart Thinking” replicants, Faustian apps and Kafkaesque subscriptions, which will relieve me of my time and debit card details.

Every good liar knows the best lies are wrapped around a nugget of truth. If we combined and enacted all the advice of social media, then perhaps physical excellence, sound mental health, enlightenment, happiness, even, might well await. Yet professional liars know the greatest lure is the unattainable and immeasurable. It’s these seductive delusions, cascading on the infinite scroll of social media, that have collapsed the internet. How did this happen?

The answer lies in the constants of the medieval village, which our global village now mimics. Festivities are periodic. Tyrants come and go. The function of the town square is to sell, regardless. Post-Reformation, the market is all. The new faith. There are many fallacies in terms of sales (cost bias, appeal to closure, sales puff, Dunning–Kruger effect etc). These might be seen as positive, at least for the hucksters, but the real profit and damage is to be made in the shadow-side. Consider what constitutes the medieval village and our own version of it.

We still have the feudal lords — CEOs, politicians etc — along with the town criers and priests of the chattering class, in thrall to the establishment while feigning to critique it. Crucially, ambitions and dreams are not the only exploited fare. All our natural fears, neurosis, envy and malice, exacerbated by living in a time when everything feels like it’s in (mis)managed decline, can be directed not to their source or solution but to the promise of temporary catharsis. This is exacted upon whoever happens to be languishing in the stocks of the global village square at any given moment, for anything from a semantic to a sexual infraction. Whatever justice, retribution or cleansing this does or does not bring, it changes nothing in the larger scheme of things. It is designed to change nothing, other than venting very real pressures through successive social media moral panics and individualised punishments.

How could we be so sophisticated and yet so susceptible? Leon Trotsky wrote of Germany mutating into the Third Reich: “Not only in peasant homes, but also in city skyscrapers, there lives alongside the 20th century the 13th.” I know this quote not directly but from its inclusion in one of the great overlooked prophetic texts of our time — Carl Sagan’s The Demon-Haunted World (1995).

The book is a jeremiad for science and against ignorance. According to Sagan, rigorous enquiry is the best way to begin to understand existence and gain a foothold in our own destiny. Science, he argues, is too important to be left to scientists and that a population which abandons it will be doomed. Though he’s most scathing towards monetised pseudoscience and organised religion (“We can pray over the cholera victim, or we can give her 500 milligrams of tetracycline every 12 hours”), he also warns that science is never absolutely certain or settled, and to suggest so is unscientific. It’s not a series of sacred precepts but rather a constantly developing and self-critical way of seeing the world. Even Isaac Newton, sacrosanct for centuries, was proved inaccurate by Albert Einstein.

When scientists believe, dogmatically or egotistically, they become priests. But science is, or should be, a “built in error-correcting machine” requiring constant maintenance and good faith. The rust that devours and endangers the machine is the same plague that has made the internet feel, paradoxically, smaller than it was; it is the plague of fallacies.

The fallacies of the internet are legion. Sagan makes it through around a dozen, but all are rife now. Ad hominem. No True Scotsman. Arguments from authority. Sunken cost. Straw men. Whataboutery. Scapegoat. The law of the excluded middle. Motte-and-bailey. Like most evils, they’re exceptionally tempting, somewhere between a language game and a mind-hack to deceive and distract your opponent. Victory ensues but at the cost of an accruing deficit with reality. It’s the refuge of every debating scoundrel and it is an epidemic online.

Today, the market encourages weaponised fallacies in their most pernicious and dangerous forms, aided by the architecture of social media: deliberate brevity that prevents nuance, complexity or contextualisation; biased, monetised algorithms; the deliberate stirring of controversy for the metrics; the reliance on dopamine surges and adrenaline rushes; the manufacture of hyper-partisan echo-chambers; the raising of discourse to a hysterical pitch. In a neoliberal age when substantive political change seems unachievable, the battlefields are almost entirely in the realm of linguistics and signifiers. The more ineffectual in actual life, the more heated, brutal, righteous and unforgiving online.

The problem might be an inability to adapt to a mercantile age. Though Sagan alludes to the source of our animus, he has a blind spot regarding the influence of the market. He realises that “spurious accounts that snare the gullible are readily available”, while “scepticism does not sell well”. And he argues against the “dumbing down of America” through “the slow decay of substantive content in the enormously influential media”. He laments the world of “30-second sound bites”. And yet he fails to see that the market is not only the primary beneficiary of “entrepreneurial” panaceas but also the pillories and gallows of the global village, as distraction, catharsis and deterrent.

It was this that made the online world claustrophobic, this that betrayed the initial spirit of what the internet could have been. While we tear each apart in false dichotomies, purity spirals, cosplay, and the narcissism of small differences, a deeper tectonic division goes overlooked. The meaningful chasm is between those who use the internet (and are in turn used by it in data harvesting, social engineering, surveillance), and those who profit from and stir the “culture wars” for our engagement and their profit. The Forbes’ list of billionaires is one place to begin.

How, then, to escape? The answer lies not in answers but the antithesis. For we’re drowning in answers, and almost all of them are merely adverts. Freedom begins instead in endless questioning, uncertainty, beginning again with the scepticism and wonder of children. We must remember that there’s an entire universe out there, even if the stars are hidden by the jaundiced skyglow of the village.

Darran Anderson is the author of Imaginary Cities and Inventory.


The Queen's bond with corgis began in 1933 when her father brought home a corgi named Dookie, and she received her own corgi, Susan, for her 18th birthday in 1944.

Susan became the progenitor of a royal line of corgis, with many of the Queen's subsequent corgis descending from her.

Throughout her reign, Queen Elizabeth owned over 30 corgis, which were often seen accompanying her in public and private settings, reinforcing their association with British royalty.

The Queen's visible affection for her corgis, often captured in media, helped cement their image as charming and loyal companions.

For instance, during the Queen's Platinum Jubilee, the sky above Buckingham Palace was lit with images of corgis, highlighting their symbolic connection to the monarchy.

This royal association has made corgis a symbol of British heritage and prestige, contributing to their appeal as pets worldwide.

The media's portrayal of the Queen's corgis, coupled with their appearances in popular culture, such as Netflix's "The Crown," has amplified their status as cultural icons.

The Queen's passing in 2022 led to a resurgence in corgi popularity, with registrations reaching a 30-year high, demonstrating their enduring appeal.

In summary, Queen Elizabeth II's deep affection for corgis and their integration into royal life have played a pivotal role in elevating the breed's status, making them beloved pets with a unique royal connection.

The Queen's bond with corgis began in 1933 when her father brought home a corgi named Dookie, and she received her own corgi, Susan, for her 18th birthday in 1944.

Title:

Content: Prince William reassures fan that Queen Elizabeth II’s beloved corgis are ‘fine’

As Prince William surprised mourners waiting outside Westminster Hall to pay their respects to Queen Elizabeth II on Saturday, one had a pressing question on her mind: How are the late Queen’s beloved corgis faring?

“I saw them the other day,” the recently anointed Prince of Wales, 40, said in response.

“They’re being looked after fine. They’re two very friendly corgis. They’ve got a good home, they’re being looked after very well.”

The woman looked rather relieved to hear this, offering her condolences to William before he continued down the line.

It’s widely known that Queen Elizabeth harbored a lifelong adoration for the dog breed.

When she died on Sept. 8 at the age of 96, she left two of them behind: Muick and Sandy, along with a cocker spaniel named Lissy. Another one of her much-loved pups, an elderly dachshund-corgi mix named Candy, reportedly passed away just months before the Queen‘s death.

As Prince William alluded, Muick and Sandy have already safely moved in with Prince Andrew and his ex-wife Sarah Ferguson – with whom he still cohabitates – at their shared residence in Windsor. Meanwhile, Lissy is reportedly staying with her trainer, per E!.

As previously reported, it was back in 1933 when Queen Elizabeth II received her first corgi, Dookie. The pooch was gifted to the then-7-year-old by her father, George VI.

The late Queen Elizabeth II owned more than 30 corgis throughout her life, getting her first one in 1933 at age 7.

Getty Images

The late Queen Elizabeth II owned more than 30 corgis throughout her life, getting her first one in 1933 at age 7.

Getty Images

The late Queen Elizabeth II owned more than 30 corgis throughout her life, getting her first one in 1933 at age 7.

Getty Images

The late Queen Elizabeth II owned more than 30 corgis throughout her life, getting her first one in 1933 at age 7.

Bettmann Archive

The late Queen Elizabeth II owned more than 30 corgis throughout her life, getting her first one in 1933 at age 7.

Bettmann Archive

The late Queen Elizabeth II owned more than 30 corgis throughout her life, getting her first one in 1933 at age 7.

Getty Images

The late Queen Elizabeth II owned more than 30 corgis throughout her life, getting her first one in 1933 at age 7.

Getty Images

Ad
Up Next
7

View Slideshow

Then, on the Queen’s 18th birthday in 1944, her parents gave her another corgi-pup, this one named Susan.

It’s been reported that, of the more than 30 corgis Queen Elizabeth was said to have owned over her lifetime, many were Susan’s descendants. The lineage sadly ended in 2015, however, when her last living progeny, Willow, died at the age of 15.

The Duke and Duchess of York brought Muick – along with another pooch named Fergus who tragically succumbed to a congenital heart defect very shortly thereafter – into the Queen’s life in March of 2021 to cheer her up in light of her late husband Prince Philip’s declining health. The late Duke of Edinburgh died at the age of 99 that April.

From there, Sandy found her way to Buckingham Palace on the occasion of the Queen’s 95th birthday.

She seemed to have no problem fitting right into the royal lifestyle, easily making her way into the monarch’s heart after the loss of her husband.

Susan became the progenitor of a royal line of corgis, with many of the Queen's subsequent corgis descending from her.

Throughout her reign, Queen Elizabeth owned over 30 corgis, which were often seen accompanying her in public and private settings, reinforcing their association with British royalty.

Title:

Content: Queen Elizabeth II is known to have had over 30 different dogs during her reign as the head of the monarchy until her passing last week, Thursday September 8th 2022.

The Queen who has been succeeded by her son, the now His Royal Highness King Charles III, was a big animal lover, but had a definite soft spot for dogs, and in particular, the breed Pembroke Welsh Corgi.

On the day she passed, Queen Elizabeth II had four dogs, two Pembroke Welsh Corgis, one Dorgi — a cross between a Dachshund and a Corgi — and one Cocker Spaniel.

Read more: Prince Harry and Meghan Markle set to fly children Archie and Lilibet to the UK for Queen Elizabeth's funeral

It has been confirmed that her two remaining Corgis, named Muick and Sandy, will now be looked after by her son, Prince Andrew The Duke of York.

He will look after the dogs alongside his ex-wife Sarah Ferguson, The Duchess of York. Despite divorcing in 1997, they remain cohabiting.

The animals will live alongside The Duke and Duchess at their Royal Lodge in Windsor.

The change of ownership was confirmed by a spokesperson for the Duke of York.

Both dogs were gifted to the late monarch by the prince, and so will be returned to his ownership.

During lockdown, Prince Andrew gave Queen Elizabeth two dogs, Muick and Fergus. Sadly, Fergus died last May, and he was replaced with Sandy.

Sarah Ferguson, The Duchess of York, posted an emotional statement following the loss of her former mother-in-law.

"I am heartbroken by the passing of Her Majesty the Queen. She leaves behind an extraordinary legacy: the most fantastic example of duty and service and steadfastness, and a constant steadying presence as our head of state for more than 70 years," she penned.

"To me, she was the most incredible mother-in-law and friend. I will always be grateful to her for the generosity she showed me in remaining close to me even after my divorce. I will miss her more than words can express."

Queen Elizabeth II was renowned for her love of dogs, and other animals including horses.

She began her love of Pembroke Welsh Corgis back in 1933, when she was first given a little corgi named Susan as a gift for her 18th birthday.

All of the subsequent royal corgis bred by the monarch descended from Susan, the original.

It is not known or publicised who will care for Candy and Lissy, the previously mentioned Dorgi and Cocker Spaniel.

Get the latest RSVP headlines straight to your inbox for free by signing up to our newsletter

Read more:

The Queen's visible affection for her corgis, often captured in media, helped cement their image as charming and loyal companions.

Title:

Content: Throughout her life, the Queen has made no secret of her love for her corgis and dorgis. The monarch has often been seen alongside her furry friends, and it is thought that she has looked after more than 30 of the dogs over the years.

As you can imagine, the Queen’s beloved pets have been treated to lives of pure luxury, with their meals more extravagant than most. The pampered pooches obviously couldn't just eat any old normal dog food, but instead are said to feast on the best ingredients produced by top chefs.

The corgis' diet is thought to be made up of luxurious meals such as fillet steaks and chicken breast. Royal biographer Brian Hoey revealed the details of the corgi’s luxurious diet in his book Pets by Royal Appointment.

READ MORE: Prince George's incredibly normal hobby that could see him play against members of the public and they won't even know

The biographer also revealed how the carefully prepared meals are delivered by a footman and then covered in gravy that is poured by the Queen herself. The pampered pets are also reportedly off limits when it comes to discipline. Brian wrote in his book that nobody is allowed to raise a finger or a voice to any of the dogs.

He claimed they cock their legs and do what corgis do wherever they want — on antique furniture, priceless carpets. They are also said to have their own room and they are allowed to wander around freely. According to Mail Online, the dogs never eaten tinned food and have even been given homeopathic remedies when they get sick.

The monarch’s close relationship with the corgi breed of dog goes back to 1933 when her father brought home a corgi that would later be named Dookie. When she was younger the Queen also had a corgi called Susan, who was gifted to her in 1944 for her 18th birthday, and quickly became a close companion.

Many of the Queen’s later corgis are said to be descendants of Susan, as the Queen continued to breed the line of dogs over fifty years. She even went on to create a number of 'dorgis', after cross breeding one of her dogs with Margaret's Dachshund, Pipkin.

Last year the Queen welcomed two new dorgis, one called Fergus and one called Muick, but the former sadly died from a heart defect in May. In June 2021, Prince Andrew and daughters Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie gave the Queen a new puppy, named Sandy, on what would have been Prince Philip's 100th birthday.

According to Hello!, one of the Queen's closest aides, Angela Kelly, has told how the pets "always brought a smile to everyone's faces" in a new chapter for her book The Other Side of the Coin, The Queen, the Dresser and the Wardrobe. She said: "I was worried they would get under The Queen's feet, but they have turned out to be a godsend. They are beautiful and great fun and The Queen often takes long walks with them in Home Park."

Angela revealed that the dogs accompanied the Queen on a flight to Balmoral in August 2021. She told: "They were very well behaved, with Louis the footman on hand. Candy, who is an old hand at flying – she must have been on hundreds of flights in her lifetime – ambled about and kept her eye on the young pups. The puppies stayed close to The Queen but occasionally sniffed around your feet as they hoped for a nibble of something tasty from our lunch."

Do you have a story you think we should be covering? Email ella.bennett@reachplc.com

Do you want the latest London travel, crime or transport news straight to your inbox? It only takes a few seconds! Click here.

Get London's biggest stories straight in your inbox

Do you want to stay up to date with the latest news, views, features and opinion from across the city?

MyLondon's brilliant newsletter The 12 is absolutely jam packed with all the latest to keep you keep you entertained, informed and uplifted.

You'll get 12 stories straight to your inbox at around 12pm. It’s the perfect lunchtime read.

And what's more - it's FREE!

The MyLondon team tells London stories for Londoners. Our journalists cover all the news you need - from City Hall to your local streets, so you'll never miss a moment.

Don't skip a beat and sign up to The 12 newsletter here.

For instance, during the Queen's Platinum Jubilee, the sky above Buckingham Palace was lit with images of corgis, highlighting their symbolic connection to the monarchy.

Title:

Content: Sunday, Sep 11, 2022

Annual ‘Tour de Corgi’ event to include new ‘Queen Elizabeth’ costume category to honour the monarch

“We all have a very strong affection for her as a fellow corgi lover," Tour de Corgi founder Tracy Stewart was quoted as saying

Queen Elizabeth II is seen walking in the private grounds of Windsor Castle, in England, on steps at the rear of the East Terrace and East Garden with four of her dogs: clockwise from top left Willow (corgi), Vulcan (dorgie), Candy (dorgie) and Holly (AP/PTI)

As a tribute to the late UK monarch Queen Elizabeth II, who passed away at the age of 96 at her Balmoral estate in Scotland on September 8, after reigning for 70 long years, the Tour de Corgi parade — an annual event that celebrates the dog breed corgi — will include a new element this year that is likely to make fans of the British royal family and corgi lovers happy.

Buy Now | Our best subscription plan now has a special price

It is no secret that the queen was extremely fond of dogs, especially corgis, from a very early age, and that she had been breeding them until 2018, when she finally realised that she may have to leave some of them behind after her death.

According to Country Living, the queen had four dogs at the time of her death: two Pembroke Welsh Corgis, a Dorgi (Corgi-Dachshund mix), and a Cocker Spaniel named Lissy, who joined the family only this year, in January 2022.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by The Royal Family (@theroyalfamily)

In her lifetime, she reportedly bred 14 generations of corgis, and even famously declared: “My corgis are family.”

According to an Independent report, Queen Elizabeth‘s love for her four-legged friends was well-documented during this year’s platinum jubilee celebrations in the UK, when the sky above Buckingham Palace was lit up with images of the dog breed.

The publication mentioned that the Tour de Corgi parade this year — which has been taking place in Fort Collins, Colorado since 2014 — will include a “Queen Elizabeth and her corgis” costume competition, in “memorium and to honour her”, quoting the event’s organisers who shared this with a local newspaper ‘The Coloradoan‘.

This is a May 12, 1973 file photo of Queen Elizabeth II sitting with her corgis, at Virginia Water to watch competitors, including Prince Philip in the Marathon of the European Driving Championship, part of the Royal Windsor Horse Show.

Tour de Corgi founder Tracy Stewart was quoted as saying, “We all have a very strong affection for her as a fellow corgi lover. I think it is just, you know, our dogs are such a big part of our hearts that it creates a very heartfelt connection.”

Advertisement

The aforementioned event will take place on October 1, 2022, and will conclude with a corgi parade through the town.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by @bronskiandfriends

According to a Reader’s Digest report, the queen was fond of corgis because of their “energy and untamed spirit”, and the fact that her parents welcomed the family’s first corgi, Dookie, in 1933. Eleven years later, in 1944, the queen’s father gifted her a corgi named Susan for her 18th birthday. The pupper even accompanied her on her honeymoon, and gave birth to a pair of puppies in 1949, which reportedly marked the beginning of the royal line of corgis.

📣 For more lifestyle news, follow us on Instagram | Twitter | Facebook and don’t miss out on the latest updates!

First published on: 11-09-2022 at 07:10:45 pm
Next Story

Bombay High Court says judicial system answerable to accused, fair and speedy trial expected

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

This royal association has made corgis a symbol of British heritage and prestige, contributing to their appeal as pets worldwide.

Title:

Content: King Charles Spaniel numbers are declining and the breed is on the Kennel Club's 'vulnerable list' - amid Corgi boom following Queen Elizabeth's death

  • Corgis have seen boom in popularity after Platinum Jubilee and death of Queen
  • Number of Pembroke Welsh Corgis registered with Kennel Club hit 30-year peak
  • But popularity of King Charles Spaniels is continuing to decline, hitting a low
  • Lovers of the breed are hoping sharing name with new King will boost the dogs

Interest in Corgis has boomed following the Platinum Jubilee and the death of Queen Elizabeth, according to the Kennel Club.

Numbers of Pembroke Welsh Corgis registered with the organisation have reached a 30-year high, the Times reports.

Conversely, King Charles Spaniels are continuing to see a decline in their popularity, with lovers of the breed reportedly hoping that sharing a moniker with the new monarch may give the dogs a boost (though the new king prefers Jack Russells).

The breed, which is on the Kennel Club's vulnerable list, hit a low in 2020, with just 56 registrations. This increased to 91 in 2021, but numbers so far this year are so low, it is likely to drop beneath 2020.

The number of Corgis registered with the Kennel Club has reached a 30-year high, with interest growing following the death of the Queen (pictured here in 1980 with three of the dogs)

Cavalier King Charles Spaniels (as pictured) are doing well in terms of popularity, although their close relative the King Charles Spaniel (not pictured) is seeing a decline

However, it notes that Cavalier King Charles Spaniels, the original breed from which King Charles diverged in the middle of the century, is doing well, with 3,772 registrations last year.

The original Cavalier King Charles Spaniel dog breed was developed from toy spaniels. Popular as women's pets, they were also beloved of King Charles II, who was said to be so fond of his spaniels, he could not be parted from them.

Although Corgis were on the Kennel Club's vulnerable list in 2014, they are now one ofthe UK's most popular breeds, and the Queen is credited with boosting their popularity (pictured: Queen Elizabeth with one of her beloved corgis, Candy)

The Pembroke Welsh Corgi has become known as a symbol of British royalty thanks to its long-standing association with the Queen

Lovers of the ailing King Charles Spaniel may look to the influence the Queen had in turning around the fortune of corgis in recent decades.

The breed was listed as 'vulnerable' in 2014, and the Kennel Club credits Her Majesty's love of the dogs as the major factor in making them one of the UK's most popular breeds today.

Corgis, which have four short legs, a long snout and two huge pointed ears, are famous for being a symbol of British royalty.

HISTORY OF THE CORGI BREED

The word 'Corgi' is Welsh for 'Dwarf Dog', and there are two types; the Pembroke, which is the Queen's breed, and the Cardigan Corgi, a descendent Teckel family of dogs, which also produced the Dachshund

Pembroke Welsh Corgis originated in Pembrokeshire, Wales from the Spitz family of dogs which are characterised by long, thick fur and pointed ears and muzzle

Corgis are a cattle herding breed that can be traced back as far as 1107 AD, thought to have been brought to Wales by  Flemish weavers

They are the type of herding dog referred to as 'heelers', meaning that they would nip at the heels of cattle to keep them moving

The combination of their low height off the ground and the innate agility of Welsh Corgis would allow them to avoid the hooves of the larger animals

They were officially recognised as a native British breed by The Kennel Club in 1928, but Cardigans and Pembrokes weren't seen as separate breeds until 1934

Advertisement

The Queen owned more than 30 of the sandy, short-legged dogs throughout her reign.

She was gifted her first corgi, called Susan, for her 18th birthday from her late father King George VI. Ten generations of her corgis then descended from Susan.

Her dogs were given the Royal treatment having their own rooms with elevated wicker baskets and meals of beef, chick, rabbit, liver, cabbage and rice being prepared by a chef each evening.

Sometimes the Queen herself made the dog's meals. But her late husband was said to have 'loathed' the dogs' yapping.

She left behind two dogs - Sandy and Muick - who are now cared for by Prince Andrew and the Duchess of York at their Royal Lodge home.

Muick, pronounced Mick, joined the royal family at the start of 2021 along with a so-called 'dorgi', a cross between a corgi and a dachshund, called Fergus.

Fergus, who had been named after the Monarch's uncle who was killed during battle in the First World War, died after just five months.

He was later replaced with a new corgi called Sandy, as a 95th birthday present from Prince Andrew and his daughters, Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie.

Meanwhile Muick was named after Loch Muick on the Balmoral Estate.

Palace sources speaking to the Daily Mail previously revealed the beloved corgis were 'with [the Queen] in the room' at her deathbed when she died on September 8 at Balmoral.

They then touched people's hearts when they made a poignant appearance at Her Majesty's funeral on September 19.

As the late monarch's coffin made its way from London to its final resting place in Windsor, Muick and Sandy waited for the processional to pass, to see the Queen for one last time.

The dogs were seen waiting in the quadrangle with two aides before the late monarch was laid to rest in St George's Chapel.

Advertisement

King Charles Spaniel numbers declining amid Corgi boom following Queen Elizabeth's death

The comments below have been moderated in advance.

The views expressed in the contents above are those of our users and do not necessarily reflect the views of MailOnline.

The media's portrayal of the Queen's corgis, coupled with their appearances in popular culture, such as Netflix's "The Crown," has amplified their status as cultural icons.

Title:

Content: Opinion: Why Americans should think twice about watching Queen Elizabeth II’s funeral

Yes, it’s an occasion to mourn a respected global leader, but let’s not forget why the U.S. fought to free itself from Great Britain

Referenced Symbols

Many Americans will be watching the funeral of Queen Elizabeth II, even if it requires waking up in the early hours of Monday to do so. They will probably be among some 4.1 billion viewers or around half the world’s population that could tune in to the event.

On the surface, it’s easy to see why: This is, after all, the monarch who stood over the United Kingdom for seven decades. To borrow a line from a great American playwright: Attention must be paid.

Or not.

Count me among those Americans who can’t comprehend our ongoing fascination with the royals. I mean, why should we care about all the pomp and pageantry associated with the leaders of a state we fought against to win our independence?

No knock against the queen personally — “Her Majesty is a pretty nice girl,” as the Beatles once cheekily sang — but she was not my queen. Or, more to the point, I’m proud to live in a country that doesn’t see the need for a queen or king, even ones that play mostly non-political roles, as the monarchy does in the U.K.

And yet, so many Americans treat the royals as if they were our very own. Or, at the very least, they pay attention to a lot of royal-related news and events. Consider that about 30 million Americans viewed the 2018 wedding of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle. As one report noted, that’s more than the number that viewed the Oscars broadcast the same year. And American women started getting plastic surgery or non-surgical fillers to emulate that “Markle sparkle” — particularly, her nose and lips.

The Harry and Meghan mania rolled on as their challenges with the royal family emerged. The Oprah Winfrey 2021 CBS interview with the couple attracted a viewership of 17.1 million. Granted, that’s less than a third of the audience that Winfrey racked up for her 1993 ABC interview with Michael Jackson — a whopping 62 million, to be exact. But the fact we can make comparisons between the two televised events offers a key clue to the American fascination with the royals.

Namely, this is more about our obsession with celebrity culture than anything else.

Americans love their celebrities. Why else would we still be talking about the Kardashians — a family that’s basically famous for being famous — all these years later? I’d argue that the royals are akin to the Kardashians, but with the British accent that Americans prize as a symbol of class and prestige.

Plus, even more than the Kardashians, the royals are associated with lots of drama, intrigue and tragedy. Who could forget the death of Princess Diana for example? The royals are essentially our longest-running reality series. Perhaps it’s no surprise that one of Netflix’s NFLX, +2.02% most popular shows with Americans in recent years is “The Crown” and naturally, its viewership has soared since the death of Queen Elizabeth II.

I’m hardly the first to pick up on this point — quite the opposite. Observers of pop culture have long talked about the royals as, well, pop-culture icons. Media critic Bill Goodykoontz sees the parallel between the royals and the Kardashians, but also likens them to sports figures or teams. As he recently wrote, “The royal family is like sports for people watchers — something ultimately meaningless in your daily life that is fun to become invested in. It’s not all that different from a crazed Red Sox fan who will never set foot in Fenway Park but lives and dies with every game.”

Of course, there are other factors at play when it comes to our royal obsession. We’ve always been interested in our kings and queens — and perhaps even more so, our fairytale princesses — again, think about Diana. It’s a kind of mythology that’s easily understood. And some say Disney DIS, -2.27%, the media giant that has built much of its storytelling around princesses, has played a significant role in exploding this interest — at least in recent times. As British-born journalist Sandro Monetti told CNN, the “princess was the ultimate dream” in the Disney vernacular.

Let’s also not forget our love of all things British, from the Beatles and the Rolling Stones to the “Great British Baking Show” (also on Netflix). It’s almost like the royal family becomes a proxy for that — to love Mick Jagger is to love the monarchy. And lest we not forget, Mick was even knighted by Queen Elizabeth II, as were many other British celebrities. It’s all of a piece, as they say.

Another often espoused theory worth mentioning: Americans look to the royals and the form of government they embody — the constitutional monarchy in which the family has a largely ceremonial role — because our own democratic state has become such a messy, polarized affair of late. It’s a point that former President Barack Obama even made when he hosted Prince Charles (now King Charles III) in 2015.

“The American people are quite fond of the royal family,” the president said. “They like them much better than their own politicians.”

I say all this not to discount the very real and serious nature of some events in the life of the royal family, including Queen Elizabeth II’s passing. There’s indeed a sadness surrounding the death of a woman who served her state for 70 years and who, by many accounts, was a loving mother, grandmother and great-grandmother and who cared for all those Corgis, too. But again, the state she served happens to be across the Atlantic. And its continued support of the monarchy strikes me as inherently un-American.

Nearly 250 years ago, we fought a revolution to free ourselves from the shackles of a British king. To quote the U.S. Declaration of Independence: “The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States.”

The United States is not alone. The story of the British Empire in the 20th century is the story of decolonization. For most citizens of the world, the right to be independent — to no longer have to answer to another state, especially one with a king or queen pictured on its currency — is a sacred one.

In the end, I admit I might sneak a peek at the queen’s funeral — it’s a spectacle, to be sure, and I respect the woman on a certain level for the reasons already stated. I also admired the occasional sense of humor she brought to the job, as when she shared tea with Paddington Bear.

But my admiration goes only so far. Even with the challenges we face in this country, we remain a nation ruled without the stamp of a monarch. That’s a freedom we should never forget.

The Queen's passing in 2022 led to a resurgence in corgi popularity, with registrations reaching a 30-year high, demonstrating their enduring appeal.

In summary, Queen Elizabeth II's deep affection for corgis and their integration into royal life have played a pivotal role in elevating the breed's status, making them beloved pets with a unique royal connection.