Our theory treats nominally democratic institutions as constraints that autocrats struggle to loosen and citizens’ beliefs as the central battlefield on which the struggle for political change is waged. After reviewing the book’s key findings, in this chapter we use our theoretical framework to suggest a series of important questions about autocratic politics in the early twenty-first century. We explore how the world’s autocrats are attempting to shape their citizens’ beliefs by weaponizing distinctly modern technologies, not just propaganda and censorship. We also discuss how the world’s autocrats are attempting to loosen the electoral constraints that bind them. Although this book is about propaganda in autocracies, it has important implications for politics in democracies, especially as a series of “populist-authoritarian” leaders take power across Europe and North America. We argue, in particular, that Xi Jinping’s propaganda strategy helps us understand the process of democratic erosion underway across the world. We conclude by discussing the book’s implications for public policy.

A defining feature of twenty-first-century capitalism is the emergence of platform labor. While still small, many scholars are convinced it will grow significantly, with far-reaching effects on work. To date, the literature is unsettled on questions such as how “algorithmic management” reshapes power and authority over labor, impacts on conventional jobs, inclusion in the labor market, regulatory requirements, and labor struggles. In this chapter we outline the main lines of contention, identify major gaps in knowledge, and suggest areas for future research. We begin by sketching three dominant themes: A hopeful view, in which platforms expand the range of freedoms and autonomy that income earners enjoy; a technology-centered approach, in which algorithms and digital surveillance and evaluation establish greater management control over labor; and a view in which platforms accelerate a trend toward precarious forms of work. We identify one source of complexity that yields continuing contention: Heterogeneity in the workforce, with varying segments of labor differentially positioned with respect to the platforms themselves. We end by alluding to regulatory struggles and forms of worker mobilization and speculate about possible paths that might yield more humane yet innovative uses of the platform paradigm.

Today three forces threaten to limit speech. The first pits guns against words, creating a showdown between the Second Amendment and the First. The second sees powerful speakers invoking their right to speak in order to silence other people’s speech. Third, and perhaps the most subtle, the monitoring of our digital speech by government and business chills our ability to say what we want online. Free speech will survive provided we remain vigilant in defending the speech rights of the minority against what has been called the tyranny of the majority.

When a few years ago the discussion of how to deal with the increasing digital interception of private communications started, the call for a new legal instrument quickly erupted. However, this is not a blind spot of international law. The Human Rights Committee has used cyber-related developments as an opportunity to unpack the right to privacy in the context of its state reporting procedure. The chapter describes and systemises the Committee’s interpretation of Article 17 with respect to digital surveillance, meta data retention and foreign intelligence cooperation. It demonstrates that the Covenant provides the necessary legal ground to confront new technological challenges without ignoring the exigencies of the altering security situation. The Committee, having identified various shortcomings in national legal frameworks, has specified the necessary safeguards to effectively protect the right to privacy against arbitrary interference. It has also clarified the territorial scope of protection, which is not limited to domestic measures but extends to transnational surveillance and digital intelligence-sharing. The chapter concludes by describing new issues which the Committee will need to consider in the future, and makes recommendations for the conceptualisation of the right to privacy in the digital age more generally.

Chapter 10 focuses on the the rise and fall of Guo Meimei, an Internet sensation in the 2010s. Presenting herself as general manager of the Red Cross Commercial Society, her ostentatious display of wealth on the online platform Weibo attracted scorn from netizens and led to an official crackdown on the (unrelated) hapless quasi-governmental agency the Red Cross Society of China (RCSC) in 2011. Criticism of the RCSC reflected growing challenges to the legitimacy of the CCP in the burgeoning online protest culture of the 2010s, characterized by “human flesh searches” and “spectating,” with serious social issues presented in a humorous style to attract interest. This story reveals complex motivations for participating in online protest events, from genuine outrage to more mundane motivations. The case led to a lasting distrust of the RCSC within China, despite being officially declared innocent of wrongdoing, and Guo Meimei’s later arrest and imprisonment on charges of operating an illegal gambling den. A spate of unrelated online controversies likewise reveal the deep-seated crisis of trust in public institutions and their officials in the PRC today, in turn spurring the widespread adoption of online public-opinion survey reports, “civilized” website awards, and other forms of Party surveillance and self-regulation through semi-automated big-data mining combined with traditional “front building” and increasingly draconian legal measures, all of which are enabled by the more easily monitored and contained closed discussion groups of WeChat.