In this chapter, we define a family cult as a cult that either mainly consists of one family or a cult whose doctrine specifically defines or exerts control over the family structures of its members. We examine the unique dynamics of family cults, as well as the characteristics of leaders and followers of family cults by discussing six family cults: The Branch Davidians, The Children of God cult (later known as The Family International), The Manson Family, The Peoples Temple, The Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ and the Latter-Day Saints, and The Church of the Lamb of God. We explore the added degree of difficulty of maintaining loyalty to a cult leader above family, and the dynamics that appear in the resulting complex relationships. Future considerations include the redefining of family structure in the age of the Internet. As people develop connections with others across the world and the concept of family changes with time, it will be interesting to see the evolution of our concept of family cults.

This chapter explores adolescent involvement in cults. Adolescence is a time in which many individuals engage in group-like activity. However, this chapter defines cult-like behavior as beyond the range of normal group-like activity expected during the transitional time of adolescence. The biological, social, and psychological factors of adolescent development increase their susceptibility to peer pressure, predispose them to self-exploration, and contribute to characteristics that attract adolescents to cults. This chapter describes the characteristics of normal adolescent life that predispose adolescents to cult recruitment, characteristics of adolescents who are likely to join cults, and characteristics of the leaders of cults that attract adolescents. Important regarding adolescents in particular, the increased access to technology, the internet, and social media is redefining adolescent membership in cults and future considerations may offer an updated lens through which to define and consider adolescent involvement in cults.

Chapter 5 demonstrates that in the years 2000–05 a new generation of Russian hawks born around the 1970s, the “Young Conservatives,” acquired a reputation as professional media intellectuals and developed a new type of collective ideological entrepreneurship. They naturalized modernist conservatism’s eclectic blend of concepts into a full-fledged ideology, “dynamic conservatism.” Moreover, they established themselves as a legitimate stratum of Russia’s intellectual elites contributing public policy recommendations.

This chapter tells the story of how the uncensored text of Pepys’s diary was finally published in the late twentieth century, before turning to the diary’s online presence in the twenty-first century. The complete text, edited by Latham and Matthews, appeared between 1970 and 1983. However, the decision to publish the diary in full was made much earlier, at the time of the controversial Lady Chatterley trial (1960). Getting all the diary into print required navigating the new law against obscene publications, with implications for how the diary is read today. International collaboration – and behind-the-scenes controversy – also shaped this edition. Collaboration is likewise a feature of the site pepysdiary.com (2003-present), which attracts an international community of readers. As the COVID-19 pandemic hit, this site became a record of how readers worldwide used Pepys’s history to interpret a contemporary plague.

This chapter reviews the regulation of disinformation from an African human rights’ law perspective, focusing on the right to freedom of expression and the right to vote. It provides an overview of the African regional law framework, specifically the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights of 1981 (the African Charter) and corresponding jurisprudence. The chapter also analyses the way in which freedom of expression and disinformation laws have been applied in African countries, the aim being to contextualize and illustrate how African regional law plays out at the domestic level, but with an emphasis on the position in South Africa.

A broad consensus has emerged in recent years that although rumours, conspiracy theories and fabricated information are far from new, in the changed structure and operating mechanisms of the public sphere today we are faced with something much more challenging than anything to date, and the massive scale of this disinformation can even pose a threat to the foundations of democracy. However, the consensus extends only to this statement, and opinions differ considerably about the causes of the increased threat of disinformation, whom to blame for it, and the most effective means to counter it. From the perspective of freedom of speech, the picture is not uniform either, and there has been much debate about the most appropriate remedies. It is commonly argued, for example, that the free speech doctrine of the United States does not allow for effective legal action against disinformation, while in Europe there is much more room for manoeuvre at the disposal of the legislator.

The structure of society is heavily dependent upon its means of producing and distributing information. As its methods of communication change, so does a society. In Europe, for example, the invention of the printing press created what we now call the public sphere. The public sphere, in turn, facilitated the appearance of ‘public opinion’, which made possible wholly new forms of politics and governance, including the democracies we treasure today.

The issue of mass disinformation on the Internet is a long-standing concern for policymakers, legislators, academics and the wider public. Disinformation is believed to have had a significant impact on the outcome of the 2016 US presidential election. Concern about the threat of foreign – mainly Russian – interference in the democratic process is also growing. The COVID-19 pandemic, which reached global proportions in 2020, gave new impetus to the spread of disinformation, which even put lives at risk. The problem is real and serious enough to force all parties concerned to reassess the previous European understanding of the proper regulation of freedom of expression.

The ‘marketplace of ideas’ metaphor tends to dominate US discourse about the First Amendment and free speech more generally. The metaphor is often deployed to argue that the remedy for harmful speech ought to be counterspeech, not censorship; listeners are to be trusted to sort the wheat from the chaff. This deep skepticism about the regulation of even harmful speech in the USA raises several follow-on questions, including: How will trustworthy sources of information fare in the marketplace of ideas? And how will participants know whom to trust? Both questions implicate non-regulatory, civil-society responses to mis- and disinformation.

The Concluding Reflections explore democracy’s potential to overcome its contradictions and challenges. The rise of populism, seen as democratic autoimmunity, is examined, where leaders manipulate public sentiment, often through xenophobia and anti-elitism, undermining democratic principles. The tyranny of an exclusory majority is also cautioned against. The potential for democracy’s reimagining in the face of contemporary challenges such as cybernetic culture, migration, and globalization is considered. Ezrahi reflects on the role of creative individuals and cultural forces in shaping political imaginaries. The transformation of the internet and major platforms like Google, Facebook, Amazon, and Twitter from democratizing communication to powerful monopolies is analyzed, as well as the misuse of Big Data, illustrated by the Cambridge Analytica scandal, and the unintended consequences of digital platforms, including the spread of misinformation. The discussion concludes with a reflection on the broader deterioration of democratic epistemology. Ezrahi argues for a shift from a positivistic, naturalistic ontology to an ethical-normative anchorage, proposing to replace the current ontological defense of democracy with a commitment to preserving freedom based on novel axioms, framing politics as alternative productive fictions. Ezrahi proposes to reimagine a democratic epistemology which is anchored in ethics and collective commitment.