Fact check: Are we in civel unrest

1. Summary of the results

Based on the analyses provided, we are not currently in a state of widespread civil unrest, but there are significant indicators of elevated risk and ongoing concerns globally. The sources reveal a complex picture of civil unrest as a persistent global phenomenon rather than a current acute crisis.

Global civil unrest statistics show concerning trends: Over 800 significant anti-government protests occurred in more than 150 countries, with over 80,000 incidents recorded in the top 20 countries for frequency of protest and riot activity in 2024 ^[1]. This demonstrates that civil unrest is a widespread global concern, though it doesn't indicate we are currently "in" civil unrest.

Business and economic impacts are substantial: More than 50% of businesses rank civil unrest and political violence as their main worry, with insured losses exceeding $10 billion over the past decade ^[2]. Political risks and violence remain a top 10 global business risk according to the Allianz Risk Barometer ^[1].

Contributing factors are identifiable: Research shows that hard-right social media activity contributes to right-wing civil unrest in the United States, with a 10% increase in such activity predicting a 0.04% increase in civil unrest events the following month ^[3].

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The original question lacks geographical specificity - civil unrest varies dramatically by location and region. The analyses show global patterns but don't address specific current conditions in any particular country or region ^{[4] [5] [6]}.

Economic and political stakeholders benefit differently from various narratives about civil unrest:

• Insurance companies and security firms benefit financially from heightened concerns about civil unrest, as evidenced by the extensive business risk reporting ^{[1] [2]}
• Political movements may benefit from either amplifying or downplaying civil unrest depending on their agenda
• Social media platforms may benefit from engagement driven by civil unrest content, as suggested by the connection between hard-right social media activity and actual unrest events ^[3]

Alternative framing strategies exist: Research indicates that framing modern social issues as civil rights violations can actually decrease public support for government action, suggesting that appealing to American values may be more effective for generating social change ^[7]. This reveals that how civil unrest is discussed significantly impacts public perception and response.

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question "are we in civil unrest" contains several problematic assumptions:

Lack of definitional clarity: The question doesn't define what constitutes being "in" civil unrest versus experiencing isolated incidents or elevated risk. The sources provide definitions and preparation guidance but don't establish clear thresholds for when a society is considered to be "in" civil unrest ^{[4] [5]}.

Geographic ambiguity: The question uses "we" without specifying location, which is crucial since civil unrest is highly location-dependent. Global statistics show varying levels of activity across different regions ^[1].

Binary framing bias: The question implies a yes/no answer when civil unrest exists on a spectrum. The analyses show that civil unrest is better understood as an ongoing risk with varying intensity levels rather than a binary state ^{[6] [8]}.

Temporal confusion: The question doesn't specify a timeframe, and the sources indicate that civil unrest should be understood as both historical patterns and future risks rather than just current status ^{[2] [3]}.