logo
Australian academics refuse to attend US conferences for fear of being detained

Australian academics refuse to attend US conferences for fear of being detained

The Guardian13-04-2025

When Gemma Lucy Smart received an invitation to attend an academic conference in the US, she was excited. But that was before Donald Trump was returned to office.
Now Smart, who has a disability and is queer, has decided it's too risky to travel to Seattle for the social sciences conference in September.
The disabilities officer at the Council of Australian Postgraduate Associations (Capa) and PhD candidate at the University of Sydney will instead attend remotely.
Sign up for the Afternoon Update: Election 2025 email newsletter
Shortly after Trump was inaugurated, the Society for Social Studies of Science (4S) made its conference 'hybrid' in response to what it said were 'unpredictable' developments at the US border.
'They were concerned about people entering,' Smart said.
'I work on the history of psychiatry, so my field has a lot to do with diversity, equity and inclusion. They [the conference organisers] very explicitly said 'We don't believe it is safe for everyone to travel to the US, particularly our trans and diverse colleagues.'
'The focus on that is really troubling. That, if you legitimately have a different passport than you were given at a young age, you could be detained.'
The conference's co-chairs announced the hybrid move on 21 January – a day after Trump began his second term. They said in a statement that the decision reflected 'conversations with disability justice and environmental justice scholars and activists'.
'It also comes on the heels of political shifts that have made travel to the US more tenuous for many STS contributors,' they added.
Australian academics are not only cancelling trips to the US for key conferences. Scholarships are being rescinded and grant funding pulled as the fallout from the Trump administration's interference continues.
It follows media reports of travellers having their devices searched at the US border and being denied entry, including a French scientist who had messages on his phone critical of Donald Trump.
Prior to this Trump administration, US visa applicants were required to declare if they had a disability. But Smart said she began to hear accounts of people being stopped and 'detained or denied' on the basis of their condition.
'They are doing things like checking if your medication matches your declared disability. If it doesn't, they can deny you entry,' she said.
'As an openly disabled person, I would be very hesitant to be entering right now. If the conference hadn't switched online, I wouldn't have taken the risk [to attend in person].'
In a statement uploaded to its website in late January, 4S said it was 'aware' that the situation with US border control was 'currently unpredictable'.
'We … will be watching events closely in the coming months to make sure that we are supporting international attendees to the greatest possible extent,' organisers stated. 'Attendees are also encouraged to consult their own countries' travel advice.'
Australia's National Tertiary Education Union (NTEU) said it had received multiple reports from members that US policy shifts have caused academics to cancel travel, while others have had planned research partnerships terminated with little explanation.
The union's national president, Dr Alison Barnes, said members had expressed 'deeply concerning impacts on their work and careers'.
'Academics are cancelling travel to the US, abandoning valuable research partnerships, and dealing with suddenly terminated grants and contracts,' she said.
'One researcher had their five-year USAID-funded conservation program terminated literally within days of the policy changes … another had a 10-year collaboration with the CDC abruptly ended when their US counterpart was sacked by email.
'Many academics tell us they're avoiding US travel entirely due to genuine fears about border detention and visa issues.'
Barnes said many LGBTQ+ researchers, in particular, no longer felt safe travelling to the US for conferences, 'directly impacting their career progression'.
'We're seeing grant applications go unanswered, contracts for 2025 jeopardised, and researchers facing significant career uncertainty,' she said.
'When our academics fear travelling to major conferences or partnering with US institutions, the impacts ripple through the entire global knowledge ecosystem.
'These changes threaten to isolate US research from vital international exchange at precisely the time when global collaboration is most needed.'
Sign up to Afternoon Update: Election 2025
Our Australian afternoon update breaks down the key election campaign stories of the day, telling you what's happening and why it matters
after newsletter promotion
Smart has a colleague who was shortlisted for a scholarship at an Ivy League university. The academic, who is openly trans, works on gender issues in her research.
'They have been told that the number of scholarships is dwindling, if there are any at all, and that it wouldn't be safe to enter the country,' Smart said. Her colleague declined to comment further but confirmed they'd been warned by the university that travel would be risky.
PhD candidate at the University of Melbourne and the national president of Capa, Jesse Gardner-Russell, said academic conferences are crucial for developing connections and partnerships with international collaboration, particularly for early and mid career-researchers.
'In Stem, the majority of the large research labs with the top equipment will generally be found in the United States,' he said.
'If there are cuts to NIH [National Institutes of Health] funding and how those grants are rolled out, there will be large implications on our researchers even if they don't directly receive that money, because it's impacting their collaborators.'
Last year, Gardner-Russell went to the US for an international research conference in his field of ophthalmology.
'I would never have learned of these individuals or their research if I hadn't had the opportunity to go there and be ingrained in that unique research culture,' he said.
'Losing students that might have to make a judgment call as to whether they can attend a conference based on the possibility of getting detained at the US is really troubling.'
He said there were also concerns over intellectual property, citing reports of phones and devices being taken and examined at the border.
Separately, on Friday, the host of cybersecurity podcast Risky Business, Patrick Gray, posted to Bluesky that he had cancelled a planned trip from Australia to the IT security conference RSA due to take place in San Francisco in April.
'Unfortunately, I have received advice that crossing the border into the United States right now would be a bad idea,' he wrote.
According to Smartraveller, which provides advice on behalf of the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, customs and border protection have strict requirements and 'broad powers' for temporary detainment or deportation when assessing eligibility.
'Officials may ask to inspect your electronic devices, emails, text messages or social media accounts. If you refuse, they can deny your entry,' it states.
'You may be held at the port of entry or a nearby detention facility. The Australian government cannot intervene on your behalf, and our ability to provide consular assistance in these circumstances may be limited.'

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Without a Badenoch/Farage pact, the Left will rule Scotland for decades to come
Without a Badenoch/Farage pact, the Left will rule Scotland for decades to come

Telegraph

time24 minutes ago

  • Telegraph

Without a Badenoch/Farage pact, the Left will rule Scotland for decades to come

Did Zia Yusuf's dramatic (and as it turns out, temporary) resignation on the day of the Hamilton by-election cost Reform the seat? Of course not. The idea that chaos in Reform puts off its voters is based on a misunderstanding of what motivates those voters. Reform exists because the older parties failed. You might argue that not all of that failure was their fault. Some of the issues that enrage the electorate – poor public services, high taxes, rising prices, dwindling social capital – are the products of a lockdown that 93 per cent of the country demanded. Others are products of our demographic decline: nations with elderly populations are bound to be less dynamic. Equally, though, there have been unforced errors and broken promises, above all on immigration. Reform is a howl of protest against those betrayals. It is an essentially negative vote, and I say that in no slighting spirit. Every party attracts negative votes. I used to get lots of them as a Conservative MEP when people wanted to punish Labour governments. Negative votes can take you, Trump-like, to the very top. I simply make the point that Reform's supporters show scant interest in their party's policies, let alone its personnel. Reform came from nowhere in the Hamilton by-election despite not having a leader in Scotland. It is hard to imagine the famously resilient electors of Lanarkshire determining their vote on the basis of an unelected party official resigning in London. If we want to play 'what if', the thing that might have given Reform the extra 1,471 votes it needed was the backing of the local Conservatives. Not every Tory would vote for Reform in the absence of a Conservative candidate, of course. Still, the electoral system used for Holyrood argues strongly for a deal at next year's Scottish Parliament election. Just as the SNP and the Scottish Greens used to maximise their representation by focusing respectively on the constituencies and the top-up list, so Reform and the Tories should do the same in 11 months' time. In Scotland, as in England and Wales, the parties have similar policies but different electorates. The Scottish Conservatives are strong in the Borders and the north-east, Reform in the more populous Central Belt. An understanding between them would leave both with more MSPs next May. Such a deal in Wales might have put Reform into office had the principality not just ditched that voting system and adopted EU-style proportional representation, but that's another story. How many Tory and Reform voters would co-operate? Although the two manifestos are compatible – lower taxes, strong defence, less wokery, secure borders, growth over greenery – tonal and aesthetic differences remain. Some Reform supporters will never vote Conservative, either because they can't forgive the tax rises and immigration failures of the last administration or, conversely, because they are former Labour voters who would never back the party of Margaret Thatcher. Some Conservatives – a smaller number – recoil from a party they see as a Trumpian personality cult. One way to express the difference is this. The Tories, after three and a half centuries, have a sense of the trade-offs and complexities involved in holding office. Reform is in the happy position of being able to claim that it is simply a question of willpower. Consider the issue of immigration. On Friday, Kemi Badenoch embarked on a major overhaul of the Blairite juridical state. She asked her shadow law officers to look at all treaties and domestic laws that hinder elected ministers from fulfilling their promises, and set five tests by which to measure success. Will we be able to deport people who should not be here, protect our veterans from 'lawfare', prioritise British citizens in housing and welfare, keep malefactors in prison, and get things built? Meeting all five tests is hard, but not impossible. Badenoch wants to take her time and get it right. But, to some, it will come across as equivocation. 'Why can't you just say now that you would leave the European Convention on Human Rights?', they ask. I have no doubt that that is where she will end up. But we need policies, not slogans. Leaving the ECHR is not a skeleton key that unlocks every door. Our problems go far deeper. Outside the ECHR, we would be constrained by numerous other international accords: the UN Refugee Convention; the Paris Agreement on climate change (under which our Australia Free Trade Agreement is being challenged in court); the Aarhus Convention, which caps costs for activist groups bringing eco-challenges. Even the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child has been used both to challenge deportation orders and to block welfare reforms. All these things need to be looked at, calmly and thoroughly. Nor is it just foreign treaties. The last Labour government passed a series of domestic statutes that constrained its successors: the Human Rights Act, the Climate Change Act, the Equality Act and a dozen more. We need to tackle these, too. What, if anything, should replace the ECHR? Do we update our own 1689 Bill of Rights? Do we offer a CANZUK version? Do we rely on pure majoritarianism? Even if all the obnoxious laws were swept away, what would we do about Left-wing activists who become judges rather than go to the bother of getting themselves elected to anything, and who legislate from the bench? Can we return to the pre-Blair arrangements where the lord chancellor is in charge? My point is that all this requires patience, detail and nuance. But a lot of voters are understandably impatient, and regard nuance as the sign of a havering milksop – a ­nuancy-boy, so to speak. They see not a Conservative Party determined to repair the broken state machine so that it can deliver on its manifesto, but a bunch of vacillating wets shying away from simple solutions. This worries me. Suppose that Nigel Farage were to form the next government and leave the ECHR, only to find that illegal immigrants continued to arrive, that judges continued to apply the rules asymmetrically, and that every one of his statutes ended up being snarled up in the courts? What would be the impact on our democracy? I pick the example of immigration because it is the most salient, but much the same applies across government. Reducing spending involves trade-offs, and anyone who pretends that there are huge savings to be made by scrapping DEI programmes or cutting waste has not looked at the figures. The same is true of reducing welfare claims, scrapping quangos, reforming the NHS and raising school standards. The diagnosis may be easy, but the treatment will be long and difficult, and will require more than willpower. In his response to Yusuf's resignation, Farage reminded us why he is a successful politician. He blamed Islamophobic trolls for making his party chairman's life impossible, thereby both anticipating the 'no one can work with Nigel' charge and reinforcing his non-racist credentials. The same calculation led him to condemn Tommy Robinson, and played a part in his falling-out with Rupert Lowe. Farage knows that there are hundreds of thousands of disenfranchised Muslims, many of whom, like his white supporters, are former Labour voters in decaying northern towns. Unnoticed by the national media, Farage has been reaching out to these communities. Imagine Farage's political nous and personal energy allied to the detailed policy work that the Tories are undertaking. Imagine his reach, whether in Hamilton or in some of those Muslim-dominated old industrial towns, complementing the traditional Conservative appeal to property-owners. 'Tis a consummation devoutly to be wished. Next year's Scottish elections will be the first test of whether figures on the British Right are prepared to put country before party. A possible by-election in Jacob Rees-Mogg's old seat may be another. But one thing is already clear. If the two parties are taking lumps out of each other all the way to the next general election, they will lose – and they will deserve to.

Trump says Elon Musk will face 'very serious consequences' if he funds Democratic candidates
Trump says Elon Musk will face 'very serious consequences' if he funds Democratic candidates

NBC News

time32 minutes ago

  • NBC News

Trump says Elon Musk will face 'very serious consequences' if he funds Democratic candidates

President Donald Trump on Saturday said there would be 'serious consequences' if tech mogul Elon Musk funds Democratic candidates to run against Republicans who vote in favor of the GOP's sweeping budget bill. 'If he does, he'll have to pay the consequences for that,' Trump told NBC News in a phone interview, but declined to share what those consequences would be. 'He'll have to pay very serious consequences if he does that,' he added. The president also said he has no desire to repair his relationship with Musk after a feud between the two men erupted into public view earlier this week. 'No,' Trump said when asked if he had any wish to do so. Asked if he thought his relationship with the Tesla and SpaceX CEO was over, Trump said, 'I would assume so, yeah.' Trump's comments were the most extensive since he and Musk exchanged threats and attacks on X and Truth Social earlier this week. He added that he thought the Republican Party was more unified than ever after the two men fell out in front of the world. Trump added that he has no plans to speak with Musk anytime soon, saying, 'I'm too busy doing other things' and 'I have no intention of speaking to him.' Trump also accused Musk of being 'disrespectful to the office of the President.' 'I think it's a very bad thing, because he's very disrespectful. You could not disrespect the office of the President,' he added. Musk on Thursday launched a barrage of posts on X against the president, including a now-deleted post highlighting the onetime links between the president and the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. 'That's called 'old news,' that's been old news, that has been talked about for years,' Trump said on Saturday. 'Even Epstein's lawyer said I had nothing to do with it. It's old news.' For days, Musk had been critical of a GOP-led spending bill that the House passed last month. In the Oval Office on Thursday, Trump responded to Musk's criticisms, telling reporters, 'I'm very disappointed because Elon knew the inner workings of this bill. I'm very disappointed in Elon. I've helped Elon a lot.' Shortly after those comments, Musk launched his flurry of posts, including promoting a post calling for Trump to be impeached and another where he said the president's tariff agenda would cause a recession later this year. Trump on Thursday also responded with his own posts on Truth Social. In one post, he wrote, 'I don't mind Elon turning against me, but he should have done so months ago,' suggesting that Musk knew what was in the bill before it was passed. He also wrote on Thursday, 'The easiest way to save money in our Budget, Billions and Billions of Dollars, is to terminate Elon's Governmental Subsidies and Contracts. I was always surprised that Biden didn't do it!' referring to federal contracts with SpaceX. On Saturday, Trump said that he hadn't given his suggestion about canceling Musk's companies' federal contracts any more thought. 'I'd be allowed to do that,' he said, 'but I have, I haven't given it any thought.' He also cast doubt on the notion that Musk's opposition to the 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act' is jeopardizing the bill's chances of success, saying he's 'very confident' that the bill will pass the Senate before July 4. 'The Republican Party has never been united like this before. It's never been. It's actually more so than it was three days ago,' Trump said. Musk contributed major financial support to Trump's presidential bid in 2024, spending over a quarter of a billion dollars to boost him in swing states last year. In the first months of the administration, Trump put Musk in charge of DOGE, where he oversaw mass layoffs of federal workers and the shuttering or partial closing of several agencies. The feud, Trump said, has made lawmakers see the benefits of the bill. 'I think, actually, Elon brought out the strengths of the bill because people that weren't as focused started focusing on it, and they see how good it is,' Trump said. 'So in that sense, there was a big favor. But I think Elon, really, I think it's a shame that he's so depressed and so heartbroken.'

Diddy would be released in DAYS after Trump pardon but a ‘free ride' out of jail will not help his future, lawyer warns
Diddy would be released in DAYS after Trump pardon but a ‘free ride' out of jail will not help his future, lawyer warns

The Sun

time44 minutes ago

  • The Sun

Diddy would be released in DAYS after Trump pardon but a ‘free ride' out of jail will not help his future, lawyer warns

SEAN 'Diddy' Combs would be a free man within days if Donald Trump decides to pardon him but it would not bode well for his future, a lawyer has warned. Trump surprised reporters by commenting on Diddy's court case during a news conference with Elon Musk last week and revealed he would consider whether the rapper's been "mistreated." 5 5 Combs has been pictured with the President at several events over the years but they had not been in contact leading up to his arrest for alleged sex trafficking and racketeering. Asked if he would consider pardoning him, Trump said, "Nobody's asked. But I know people are thinking about it. I think some people have been very close to asking." He said he felt the former music mogul used to like him "a lot" but wasn't his biggest fan after he went into politics. Despite this, Trump said, "I would certainly look at the facts. If I think somebody was mistreated, whether they like me or don't like me, it wouldn't have any impact on me." The U.S. Sun spoke to Los Angeles-based trial attorney Tre Lovell for his opinion on a possible pardon and how that would play out. He said, "The pardoning power is one of the ultimate powers of the President. It's virtually unchecked, and he can do it. 'He doesn't even have to wait for the conviction. He can do it at any time after somebody's charged, even after the crime occurs. "So the second that President Trump determines that he's gonna pardon him [Diddy]. It happens immediately. QUICK RELEASE "They basically sign the pardon, it would be sent to Diddy, and assuming he accepted, which obviously he would, then that's that." Lovell said if he had already been convicted there would be an administrative process through the Federal Bureau of Prisons to arrange his release and transportation but it wouldn't be long before he was out. Diddy 'gave hotel guard $100k in paper bag to bury Cassie beating video' "There may be a few hours, maybe one or two days sometimes that they can take time just because of the bureaucracy," he said. Combs, 55, is currently on trial in New York after pleading not guilty to five counts of sex trafficking, racketeering conspiracy, and transportation to engage in prostitution. He is facing up to life in prison if convicted. The jury has heard from several witnesses in the case so far, including Combs' ex-girlfriend, Cassie Ventura, after a damning video emerged of him beating her during their relationship. Diddy locked eyes with us as he entered the courtroom - inside the trial of the decade By Israel S-Rodriguez, Senior News Reporter at The U.S. Sun: The federal sex trafficking trial of Sean 'Diddy' Combs began with jury selection on May 5. Combs is standing trial at the Southern District of New York Courthouse in Lower Manhattan - an intimidating federal courthouse where the cases of Ghislaine Maxwell, Donald Trump, and Bernard Madoff, among others, were tried. Once a powerful founder of a music and business empire, Combs has been reduced to a defendant, inmate 37452-054, stripped of his mogul status, and now standing trial on five federal charges with the full wrath of the United States government against him. When I attended Day 3 of jury selection at the federal courthouse on May 7, the buzz around the start of the trial was palpable. Hours before the courthouse opened its doors, more than a dozen reporters and members of the public stood in line in hopes of securing a seat in the gallery for the high-profile trial. As you walk through the glass door entrance of the Daniel Patrick Moynihan Courthouse, you are met by bulletproof vest-clad court officers. All visitors must separate their electronic devices from their personal belongings, which are passed through a metal detector. Visitors walk through a metal detector before a court officer hands them a poker chip. The courthouse uses a poker chip system to sort the number of electronic devices visitors are in possession of. Electronic devices, such as Bluetooth-powered headphones, voice recorders, laptops, cellphones, and smart watches, are confiscated before you're allowed to enter the courthouse's main hallway. As about a half-dozen reporters and I waited in the gallery for jury selection, we witnessed how Combs entered the courtroom shackle-free. Combs entered with his hands pressed together, greeted his defense team before he examined the gallery, and locked eyes with reporters and potential jurors. The 55-year-old disgraced Bad Boy Records executive was attentive and engaged with his counsel as they grilled dozens of potential jurors. As jury selection wrapped up for the day, Combs embraced each of his female defense attorneys before he mouthed "thank you" to a handful of supporters in the gallery. I attended trial again as opening statements got underway on May 12 and the world media waited anxiously outside the federal courthouse before the sun rose in Lower Manhattan. A line stretched down the block from the federal courthouse as some members of the media and from the public camped out overnight to try to obtain a coveted seat inside the gallery. At least three overflow rooms were made available for reporters and the public, who are eager to witness the prosecutions case against the music mogul. At least half a dozen members of Combs' family arrived at the courthouse as spectators filed in single order to enter the federal building to turn over all their electronic devices. Combs' trial is being held on the 26th floor in Judge Arun Subramanian's courtroom and is expected to last for eight weeks. We'll bring it all to you on The U.S. Sun. He said it wouldn't make sense for Trump to pardon him halfway into the prosecution's case when the jury hasn't yet heard all of the facts, adding that it would be "premature" to act now. "I was very surprised that Trump is considering pardoning Diddy, especially in light of the fact the trial is ongoing now,' he said. "We are hearing witness after witness after witness testify to some horrible things. 'It would be a slap in the face to the witnesses, to the victims, to a lot of people to just pardon him, you know. "It would seem that he would want to wait until the trial is over, and if there's not a conviction then there's no need for him to get involved.' He went on to say, "There's one thing that Americans stand for … it's accountability, and if he were pardoned in light of what's been happening, these allegations and this testimony, there would be a sense of loss and lack of accountability. "And so I don't know how that would sit with most Americans with respect to President Trump." But Lovell said he doesn't think anybody would be surprised if Trump pardoned Diddy. "He's pardoned a lot of people that people take umbrage [with]. And he's not worried about a re-election, so I don't really think it would affect him. "He may have some more detractors, but I don't think he really cares, and his conduct thus far shows he's going to do what he wants to do." Lovell feels if Diddy is acquitted it would be a sense of victory and it would be easier to acclimate to society because he will have been vindicated in court. However, if he's convicted and pardoned by Trump it would have more of a negative impact on him. "It'll be a little tougher because people will think he got a free ride and beat the system," he said. But regardless, Lovell feels "Diddy's reputation has been irreparably harmed" and he will never be the billionaire music mogul he was once admired by millions. It comes after... Cassie Ventura gave birth after she gave four days of grueling testimony about her relationship with Sean Combs during his federal sex trafficking trial Ventura testified Combs forced her to participate in "freak-offs" where he watched her have sex with male escorts Celebrities like Prince, Mike Myers, and Bill Gates have been mentioned throughout the trial Kid Cudi testified about how his Porsche was blown up after Combs flew into a jealous rage when he dated Cassie Trump has pardoned several high-profile inmates in recent months, including reality TV stars Todd and Julie Chrisley three years after they were convicted of bank fraud and tax evasion. Combs' federal trial has been ongoing for more than three weeks and there are more witnesses set to testify. More and more damning accusations have emerged about the alleged violence he inflicted behind closed doors. The trial opened up with powerful testimony from Ventura, Combs' ex-girlfriend of over a decade. The singer, 38, alleged Combs forced her to participate in weekly drug-fueled sex marathons, which he called "freak-offs," with male escorts. Ventura, who said she did not want to engage in the sex acts, told the court her music career took a backseat due to the toll the orgies took on her day, testifying how she needed days at a time to recover. Prosecutors also released photos of the injuries Ventura allegedly suffered from Combs' years-long abuse, including a gash on her forehead that had become a permanent scar. Combs has remained mostly stone-faced in court as his lawyers insist he is innocent. The prosecution's case is slated to rest the week of June 9. If you or someone you know is affected by any of the issues raised in this story, call RAINN (Rape, Abuse, & Incest National Network) at 800-656-HOPE (4673). Diddy's charges explained by a lawyer Former federal prosecutor Neama Rahmani explained the set of charges Diddy is facing to The U.S. Sun: "Diddy is facing three charges, or three sets of charges. "The first is racketeering, which you typically see with organized crime enterprises - so the mob, cartels, street gangs -but we're seeing it a lot more in sex trafficking cases. "And you don't need an organization like the mob, as long as it's an enterprise, which is something that consists of two or more people, and they engage in two or more RICO predicate acts, that's enough for racketeering. "Racketeering is a powerful charge because it allows the government to bring in all sorts of evidence of criminal activity, as well as all sorts of people, into that racketeering conspiracy. "And anyone who's a co-conspirator, they're on the hook for any criminal acts committed in furtherance of the conspiracy. "The most serious charge, though, is sex trafficking. "What separates sex trafficking from normal sex? Adults, of course, can consent to any type of sex, no matter how freaky it is. But sex trafficking has one of three elements: force, fraud, or coercion. "And the government is saying that Diddy used force to force these men and women to participate in these freak-offs, and he coerced them by drugging them. "The least serious charge is the prostitution, sometimes called the Man Act, and that's engaging in prostitution using some sort of interstate commerce across state lines. That obviously is unlawful. "Typically, you don't see federal cases for prostitution only, which is why it's the least serious of the crimes." 5 5

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store