The rise of digital media has witnessed a paradigmatic shift in the way that media outlets conceptualize and classify their audience. Whereas during the era of mass media, ‘seeing’ the audience was based on a scientific episteme combining social theory and empirical research, with digital media ‘seeing’ the audience has come to be dominated by a new episteme, based on big data and algorithms. This article argues that the algorithmic episteme does not see the audience more accurately, but differently. Whereas the scientific episteme upheld an ascriptive conception which assigned individuals to a particular social category, the algorithmic episteme assumes a performative individual, based on behavioral data, sidestepping any need for a theory of the self. Since the way in which the media see their audience is constitutive, we suggest that the algorithmic episteme represents a new way to think about human beings.

Objectives: The current research proposes that beliefs about the legitimacy of law enforcement authorities also derive from core normative values (i.e., notions of the good and virtuous life) that stem from deeply embedded cultural orientations through which individuals operate in and interpret the world. Methods: We developed a typology of four sets of core normative value systems using multiple correspondence analysis. Data are from the European Social Survey, including 52,253 respondents from 27 countries. Results: Three of the four sets of core normative values show an association with levels of legitimacy. Conclusions: The findings provide preliminary support for our model and indicate that legitimacy perceptions are associated with core normative values, which may extend beyond individuals’ perceptions of enforcement institutions. This means that even optimal procedural conduct or efficiency may not affect the attitudes of some populations, particularly in diverse, multicultural societies. Taking into consideration, the effects of internalized core values can help inform community interventions by the police and other institutions.

Israel's long‐standing state of emergency has had considerable bearing on the state's governance. Less known, but equally important, is the fact that Israel's legal system features several overlapping and incoherent emergency legal mechanisms that exist side by side. This article demonstrates that Israel's ever‐shifting body of emergency law has been used to suit its governing authorities’ political ends. A chief goal has been to create flexibility in the application of law in order to systematically discriminate against Palestinians while maintaining a degree of legitimacy as a government by law. With these various emergency legal mechanisms available, Israel's governing officials can extend the authorities of discrete emergency regulations by mixing and matching laws or by moving freely from one legal mechanism to the next to serve desired ends. This article argues further that what may have started as a pragmatic solution quickly became programmatic and concerted. Thus, contrary to the conception that Israel's convoluted emergency jurisprudence is the accidental outcome of trying times, Israel's complex emergency jurisprudence is in fact a governing tool. This reality compels us to consider new analytical frameworks in which a state of emergency is an enduring condition. To this end, this article draws on the work of colonial law scholars. By analyzing jurisdictional complexity in contexts where emergency is dominant, these studies explain the political motivation for maintaining structured ambiguity.

This article argues that Israel's non-assimilationist policy toward Palestinians-what I term Israel's 'rule of difference'-is embedded in the state's security conception. Under the guise of protecting the state and its people, Israel has successfully achieved two essential prongs of this political objective. Dating from the 1948 War, the state has created a series of legal mechanisms that have enabled it to expropriate Palestinian land. Similarly, it has refused to allow Palestinian political associations that espouse nationalist views or challenge the Jewish character of the state to organize or run candidates, even if their programs are clearly non-violent. Ultimately, the state has effectively blocked Palestinians' ability to participate in shaping policy. Ensuring security has thus aided the state in preventing the assimilation of this group into society.