For a special issue of the International Journal of Press/Politics on “Global Myth and Magic around AI: Enchanted Determinism and Folk Theories in Public Discourses on AI”, the guest editors Michael Reiss and Judith Möller (both HBI), Tomás Dodds (University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA) and Aleksandra Urman (University of Zurich, Switzerland) welcome submissions until 15 June 2025.

In many countries, public debates suggest that the rapid spread of generative AI is inevitable, portraying its application and implementation as essential for individuals, businesses, and even economies and societies as a whole. Such narratives, promoted by politicians, observers, and tech companies use a strategy described as enchanted determinism (Campolo & Crawford 2020) to present AI as an unstoppable force beyond human comprehension and control, without genuinely addressing its complexities. These actors deflect scrutiny from the technology’s biases, limitations, and ethical concerns by exaggerating AI’s capabilities. Consequently, this techno-optimism might shift the focus from critical evaluation to accepting AI’s supposed benefits, potentially sidestepping accountability and framing AI as a magical panacea for all kinds of social and political challenges—such as Milei’s proposal to use AI for crime prediction in Argentina, plans by the new U.S. government to let AI find budget savings or attempts in several countries to rely on AI to combat misinformation.

At the same time, enchanted determinism finds fertile ground in existing folk theories that view AI as objective, autonomous, and mythically powerful, reinforcing the misconception that these systems operate without human bias or error and are universally applicable. Together, enchanted determinism and folk theories limit transparent discussions by reducing the public’s ability to question or challenge these technologies. Fueling these folk theories by portraying AI as an autonomous force rather than a product of human choices narrows the scope of debate, limiting civic engagement, tech companies’ accountability, and regulatory oversight.

Furthermore, the dominance of U.S. and Chinese tech companies in the realm of AI, including hardware, software, and infrastructure, has been described as algorithmic colonialism (Birhane, 2023) and technocoloniality (Mboa Nkoudou, 2023). This domination is also reflected in a cycle of epistemological and consequential inequalities that disadvantage local and non-Western countries and societies. First, these tech giants control the development and operation of key AI systems, limiting others’ access to agency and knowledge. Second, they often ignore local needs and contexts. These factors create an opaque environment where narratives of enchanted determinism and techno-utopianism easily take hold, imposing a U.S./China-centric worldview and further reducing local agency and the opportunity for constructive and open societal debate.

As AI continues to integrate more deeply into various societal contexts globally, it becomes increasingly important to foster a transparent and inclusive societal conversation about its development and use. The imperative for such discourse is growing as AI technologies must adhere to societal values, ethical principles and the public interest–particularly in non-Western contexts such as in Africa (Adams et al., 2023). This special issue seeks to advance our understanding of contemporary AI-related debates by critically examining the discursive strategies and power dynamics that shape public discourse around AI. We invite contributions that engage with these themes through empirical or theoretical approaches, including but not limited to:

• Comparative qualitative or quantitative empirical analyses of how enchanted determinism and/or techno-optimism is employed by different actors and how these narratives shape public discourse on AI.
• Comparative qualitative or quantitative empirical studies of folk theories or imaginaries of AI and their influence on societal perceptions, expectations, and governance debates.
• Empirical or theoretical work on power relations in global AI development, particularly the role of U.S. and Chinese tech companies in shaping AI discourse in non-Western contexts.

Submission information

Proposals should include the following: a 750-1,000-word abstract (not including references) along with brief background information on the author(s), including details on previous and current research related to the special issue theme. The abstract should include a (preliminary) research question and, if applicable, a clear description of the methodological approach.
Please submit your proposal as a single PDF file, ensuring that your names are clearly stated both in the file name and on the first page. Proposals should be sent to ai.ijpp@protonmail.com by June 1, 2025, as indicated in the timeline below.

Authors of accepted proposals are expected to develop and submit their original article for full blind peer ­review through the journal’s online submission portal, ScholarOne, where authors will need to select the designated special issue “Global Myth and Magic around AI: Enchanted Determinism and Folk Theories in Public Discourses on AI” during submission. Articles must adhere to IJPP’s guidelines, which can be found here, and must not have been published, accepted for publication, or be under consideration for publication elsewhere.

Authors are encouraged to pre-register empirical research designs and publicly share data, materials, and code after their manuscript is accepted. This is voluntary, but authors who adhere to the journal’s transparency standards will be awarded OSF Badges, acknowledging their contribution to open and replicable research. For more details on the journal’s open science guidelines and the criteria for earning OSF Badges, visit our announcement here.

Authors with any questions prior to submission are welcome to contact Michael Reiss at m.reiss@leibniz-hbi.de.

Timeline

15 June 2025 Submission deadline for abstracts (to ai.ijpp@protonmail.com)

15 July 2025 Notification of acceptance/decisions

15 November 2025 Submission deadline for full papers

The online publication of accepted articles is planned for June 2026.

About 75 years ago, in June 1950, the constituent assembly of the ARD took place. The aim was to strengthen the position of the broadcasters in the political arena and to have a say in international affairs, for example in the allocation of broadcasting frequencies. At that time, “the broadcasters” meant exclusively radio.

In a podcast by Rainer Volk for SWR Kultur, media historian Dr. Hans-Ulrich Wagner and other experts shed light on the history of the ARD. Wagner points out that the abbreviation “ARD” did not appear in 1950, but only in 1954. He explains why they initially tried to persuade people to register their radios with entertainment, why coordinating the introduction of FM programmes was so important and how the constitutional judges in Karlsruhe play a mediating role in this liberal model of broadcasting regulation.

Today, says Hans-Ulrich Wagner, the ARD as a public service broadcaster is a great success – and careers are no longer dependent on party membership as they once were.

The podcast “Die ARD und die Politik – Ringen um Unabhängigkeit” [ARD and Politics – The Struggle for Independence] is part of the SWR podcast series “Das Wissen” [The Knowledge] and can be found in the ARD audio library, which is only available in German.

Media researcher Dr. Sascha Hölig is an expert advisor to ZDF Television Council and has been supporting the council for two years in implementing the quality goals of ZDF’s voluntary commitment. Within the team, he has been mainly concerned with ZDF Kompass measurement tools, their potentials and limitations. In an interview published in the newsletter of ZDF Television Council, he draws a conclusion.

“I found our work extremely interesting and challenging. With the large number of key figures available from ZDF KOMPASS, it was sometimes not easy to keep track of the informative value associated with the measurement instruments used and how they can be used to accurately classify the achievement of the SVE goals. The diverse composition of our team was very helpful in this regard, and it was a pleasure to work together to address the interplay between legal requirements, their translation into SVE objectives, and a robust empirical review. I hope our work has helped the television council to some extent in assessing whether the objectives have been achieved or not.”

In Sascha Hölig’s view, the five core objectives formulated for 2025/2026 reflect the mandate of public broadcasting as formulated by the legislature. In accordance with the requirements of Section 31, Paragraph 2 of the Interstate Media Treaty and Section 3, Paragraph 4 of the ZDF statutes, ZDF publishes a report every two years on the fulfillment of its mission, the quality and quantity of its offerings, and the planned focus of its programming services (so-called self-commitment declaration).

Sascha Hölig personally finds core objective 1 “ZDF provides information with facts” and core objective 3 “ZDF illuminates backgrounds and helps to understand contexts” the most interesting. In both cases it is a question of whether ZDF succeeds in maintaining or gaining the trust of its users in order to be perceived as the most suitable source when it comes to understanding the world. This is a crucial point where ZDF as a journalistic actor can positively differentiate itself from the multitude of other content providers and generate significant added value for its audience.

Regarding the innovations in the metrics, Hölig said that one of the things he noticed was that in the context of the trust mentioned above, “trust in reporting” and “agreement with credibility” were generally mentioned as metrics. In his view, this is a rather general approach, where a more sensitive consideration might be helpful. The credibility of facts is an important aspect of trust in journalistic performance, but there are other factors involved, such as which facts are chosen in the first place or how they are classified by journalists. Insights into this broader view of trust could certainly be useful both in terms of assessing the achievement of objectives and as strategic knowledge for decision-makers.

Read the full interview in German here.

 

The Senate of the Leibniz Association has decided to continue funding the Leibniz Research Alliance “Value of the Past” until September 2029. In addition to the partner institutes’ own funds, the network will receive an additional 1.2 million euros for research and knowledge transfer. Within the research network, the HBI is part of the Research Lab “Practices of Appropriation”, which also focuses on historical memes and TikTok videos as well as historical Instagram and Twitter accounts.

Reasons for Continued Funding

In its statement, the Senate Committee on Strategic Planning (SAS) of the Leibniz Association praised the alliance for having achieved the main goals of the first funding phase in an “impressive way”. These include the development of an interdisciplinary working structure and the heuristic and conceptual clarification of the fundamentals. It has succeeded in building an internationally and publicly visible research network and establishing a new field of research, the topic of which is highly topical and relevant. “The network has achieved a convincing interdisciplinary approach to a central topic in the humanities and cultural studies, which has no equivalent in terms of scope and ambition in international comparison,” said the SAS.

Tasks of the Research Alliance

The Leibniz Research Alliance “The Value of the Past”, led by the Leibniz Centre for Contemporary History Potsdam (ZZF), brings together 21 Leibniz institutes and cooperates with numerous international partners. Together, they are exploring processes of value formation and value competition in societal debates about the past. The research alliance investigates the value of the past for past and present societies. This includes current debates on colonial art, reinterpretations of National Socialism and historically legitimized wars.

The First Funding Phase

The first funding phase saw numerous publications, particularly in the series “Wert der Vergangenheit” [Value of the Past] (Wallstein-Verlag). Outstanding publications include the handbook “Historische Authentizität” [Historical Authenticity] and studies on the demolition of historical monuments in contemporary history and the question of how musealization generates cultural values. Most recently, Henning Trüper’s book “,Unsterbliche Werte’. Über Historizität und Historisierung” [Immortal Values’ On Historicity and Historicisation] has received widespread attention. In addition, an online exhibition was created on the loss of historical architectural heritage in Ukraine as a result of the Russian war of aggression. The blog ‘Value of the Past’ provides insights into the ongoing research.

The Second Funding Phase

In the new funding phase, the network is addressing the value of the past in the context of current debates on climate change and biodiversity, the post-colonial responsibilities of the Western world, and the use of the past by resurgent right-wing populism and radicalism. The research network also addresses very practical issues, including the importance of concepts of space and time for understanding history, and questions of documentary evidence, for example in the field of digital history.

HBI Participation in the Research Alliance: Research Lab 3.2 “Practices of Appropriation”

The Leibniz Institute for Media Research | Hans-Bredow-Institut is a full member of the Leibniz Research Alliance “Value of the Past”. Together with Dr. habil. Barbara Christophe from the Leibniz Institute for Educational Media | Georg Eckert Institute (GEI), Dr. Hans-Ulrich Wagner heads the Research Lab 3.2 “Practices of Appropriation” in the research network. This lab is dedicated to new communicative practices of appropriating the past, which can be observed against the background of media change. The projects and networking activities examine the processes of negotiating history and the past in the public sphere and in sub-publics with regard to which historical events and topics are declared relevant to the present by different actors.

The research examines the extent to which the multiplication of communicative spaces in which the past is contested challenges previously valid monopolies of interpretation and creates new ones. At a time when people co-produce their historical knowledge through a wide range of media, from the arts sections of transnational newspapers to TikTok videos and Hitler and Holocaust memes, consensus in the culture of memory is becoming increasingly difficult. The global availability of communication services and media representations is leading to a surge in heterogenization, especially in nation-state societies.

The work in the Lab takes these dynamics into account in various fields of action. Among other things, it analyzes historical-political interventions and media strategies of populist and new right-wing actors. It also focuses on practices of remembrance in the history classroom, where members of different generations come together with different media repertoires; the debate about rituals of remembrance in memorials and on anniversaries; and new forms of historical narrative in interactive digital media.

The Past in Social Media

As a small-scale study for a current social media memory project, Daria Chepurko, Ken Phan, Kira Thiel and Dr. Hans-Ulrich Wagner examined the Instagram account “@ichbinsophiescholl” of the public broadcasters Südwestrundfunk (SWR) and Bayerischer Rundfunk (BR). This account promises an “honest” and “intimate perspective” on the young resistance fighter Sophie Scholl in the “Third Reich” by presenting her as a contemporary social media user. The results of the study have been published in the blog dossier “Sophie Scholl on Instagram: A Communication and Historical Analysis” on the HBI Media Research Blog.

Other Institutes Participating in the Leibniz Research Alliance “The Value of the Past”

Leibniz Centre for Contemporary History Potsdam (ZZF), Deutsches Bergbau-Museum Bochum – Leibniz Research Museum for Georesources (DBM), Deutsches Museum (DM), German Maritime Museum – Leibniz Institute for Maritime History (DSM), Leibniz Institute for Educational Media | Georg Eckert Institute (GEI), Germanisches Nationalmuseum – Leibniz Research Museum for Cultural History (GNM), Herder Institute for Historical Research on East Central Europe – Institute of the Leibniz Association (HI), Leibniz Institute for Contemporary History Munich-Berlin (IfZ), Leibniz Institute for the German Language (IDS), Leibniz Institute of European History (IEG), Leibniz Peace Research Institute Frankfurt (PRIF), Leibniz Institute for the History and Culture of Eastern Europe (GWZO), Leibniz Institute for Jewish History and Culture – Simon Dubnow (DI), Leibniz Institute for Research on Society and Space (IRS), Leibniz-Institut für Wissensmedien (IWM), Leibniz Institute for the Analysis of Biodiversity Change (LIB), Leibniz-Zentrum für Archäologie (LEIZA), Leibniz Center for Literary and Cultural Research (ZfL), Leibniz-Zentrum Moderner Orient(ZMO), Senckenberg – Leibniz Institution for Biodiversity and Earth System Research (SGN).

Further information

Press release in German on the “Leibniz Research Alliance ‘Value of the Past’ Receives Four More Years of Funding”, ZZF, March 26, 2025.

Website of the alliance with results and participating institutes

Blog of the alliance

What opportunities and risks does social media pose for political education, especially during election campaigns? Prof. Dr. Judith Möller gave an interview to Julia Stelzner in the magazine “Vogue” and referred to her research at the HBI.

Read the interview in German here

Summary

In the interview, Judith Möller points to the Reuters Digital News Report 2024 (published in German), which shows that 18 percent of Germans use social media as their most important source of news. Among 18- to 24-year-olds, the figure is as high as 27 percent. Here they can find out which topics are important, who represents which opinion and which facts are relevant. Nevertheless, Judith Möller emphasizes that political opinions are also shaped by personal values, norms and the reality of life.

According to Judith Möller, there is little correlation between social media sympathies and voting decisions, but social media does have a relatively large influence on whether people vote at all.

Social media offers the opportunity to make politics approachable again, the scientist explains. Politicians can get involved directly. Judith Möller emphasizes the importance of authenticity and knowledge of the platform one is using.

The AfD occupied TikTok early on and uses the platform effectively to spread its messages in a targeted manner with simplified and pointed content. Judith Möller explains that the AfD is particularly popular with people who mistrust traditional media and spend more time on social networks.

Personalizing political content on social networks is not problematic as long as it does not replace substantive debate, says the researcher, who also emphasizes how disinformation and fake news can influence the formation of political opinion. The responsibility of the platforms, in particular through the EU’s Digital Services Act, is crucial to counteract lies and misinformation.

Photo: Luiza Nalimova, iStock

How dangerous are disinformation campaigns? Prof. Dr. Matthias Kettemann, a legal expert, questions the often-invoked link between misinformation and the “threat to democracy”. In an interview with Anna Henschel on the portal Wissenschaftskommunikation.de, he refers to findings he recently published in the volume “Information Ecosystems and Troubled Democracy: A Global Synthesis of the State of Knowledge on New Media, AI and Data Governance”.

To the interview “Wir müssen nicht den Abgesang auf die Demokratie anstimmen“ [We do not have to sound the death knell for democracy]

Abstract from the Interview

Kettemann: “Democracy is resilient. We don’t have to sound the death knell for democracy when we look at the fundamental changes of the last 20 years brought about by the digital transformation. Communication cultures and structures have changed – and yet opinion-forming works by and large.

However, if we judge this change negatively, saying, “This is the end of democracy,” then that is value-driven. But one should not act as if it were indisputable that democracy is in crisis.

It is always important to monitor the right and left fringes. It is always important to support civil society engagement. It is always important to stand up for the law – especially in online spaces. So it makes perfect sense to take a critical look at newer trends in the development of democracy. But you should neither be afraid nor complacent.”

How are concentration camp memorials using the platform TikTok for remembrance work? Liv Ohlsen and Dr. Hans-Ulrich Wagner take a look at the so-called Historytoks for Generation Z and show in a three-part blog series how concentration camp memorials are taking up this new form of digital remembrance work on their TikTok accounts.

The blog series “On the Digital Remembrance Work of German-Speaking Memorials on TikTok” was created as part of the interdisciplinary Leibniz research alliance “Value of the Past”. The third part of the series was published on 27 January 2025, the 80th anniversary of the liberation of the Auschwitz concentration and extermination camp.

Overview:

Part 1: #learnontiktok

Liv Ohlsen and Hans-Ulrich Wagner discuss the origins and early days of memorial work on TikTok. Click here for the first part.

Part 2: Storytelling

Analysis of the storytelling of selected accounts. Click here for the second part.

Part 3: Digital Stumbling Blocks

First summary and identification of open questions for the future of digital remembrance work. Click here for the third part.

Further information on the Leibniz Research Alliance “Value of the Past” can be found on the alliance’s website.

Photo by Kadir Celep on Unsplash.

How much influence do far-right accounts have on Elon Musk’s perception of Europe? Quite a lot, as the French newspaper Le Monde has pointed out in a recent article. Jan Rau was interviewed as an expert on the topic of “the extreme right and social media”. The article shows how a few accounts on the platform shape Musk’s view of Europe through selectively curated, often anti-migrant and anti-Islamic content. These accounts include, for example, “RadioGenoa” and “Peter Sweden”, which present European events in English from a profoundly ideological perspective.

Jan Rau is quoted on the case of Naomi Seibt, whom Musk helped organize a public conversation with Alice Weidel (AfD). “She is one of the few personalities in this milieu to have first gained her audience on an international level. The vast majority of important figures in the German or Austrian extreme right first became known locally and through publications in German,” Rau told Le Monde.

The full article is available in French in Le Monde.

The first edition of the new online discussion series “Spotlight” by the Alexander von Humboldt Institute for Internet and Society (HIIG) focused on Mark Zuckerberg’s (CEO Meta) decision to end the collaboration with external fact-checkers in the US for all of Meta’s platforms (Facebook, Instagram and Threads) and to rely instead on “Community Notes” – an approach similar to that of the platform X.

After short inputs from Prof. Dr. Jeanette Hofmann (HIIG) and Prof. Dr. Matthias C. Kettemann, a discussion took place. The event was moderated by Katharina Mosene.

Click here to watch the recording of the event

The digital event series “Spotlight” provides a forum for current social issues and is conducted via the Zoom platform. Registration is required.

“Spotlight” is part of the DSA Research Network project, which is funded by the Mercator Foundation.

Further information about the event can be found on the website of the HIIG.

Photo by Tima Miroshnichenko on Pexels

In early 2025, Antonia Eichenauer, Jonah Wermter and Moritz Wiechert joined the team of the DFG-funded research group “Communicative AI (ComAI) – The Automation of Societal Communication” at the Leibniz Institute for Media Research | Hans-Bredow-Institut (HBI) as junior researchers.

Antonia Eichenauer and Jonah Wermter are working on the project “Journalism: The Automation of News and Journalistic Autonomy”, while Moritz Wiechert is working on the project “The Juridification of Communicative Artificial Intelligence”.

Welcome to the HBI!