Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Alberto Bitonti: “Debates on lobbying regulation have focused overwhelmingly on transparency, yet disclosure alone does little to address the deeper democratic challenges of unequal power, narrow representation and public distrust. This article argues that lobbying regulation should be designed not only to make influence visible, but also to make it fairer and more deliberative. Drawing on deliberative democracy, this article develops the concept of an open lobby democracy, proposing three institutional solutions: a register of interested parties to map the full range of stakeholders, a digital deliberative platform to structure exchanges between groups and policy makers and a policy footprint to document and justify decisions in light of prior deliberation. This framework preserves policy makers’ ultimate authority while ensuring more accountable, reasoned and legitimate decisions. By reframing lobbying regulation as a tool for deliberative renewal, this article contributes to ongoing debates on how to mend democracy in times of distrust and complex policy-making challenges…(More)”.

Paper by Laura Mai & Joshua Philipp Elsässer: “Data play a central role in climate law and governance. They inform decision-making and arise from governance mechanisms, such as reporting and disclosure requirements. Beyond supporting climate law and governance, however, data, in a very real sense, do governing work: they constitute and restructure relations between actors, create and sustain forms of authority, disrupt modes of claiming legitimacy, and ultimately, purport to render the climate governable. Working across legal scholarship, international relations, as well as science and technology and critical data studies, we identify, describe, and analyse four functions of data in climate law and governance: meaning-making, orchestration, engagement, and transparency. Linking these functions to political programme (policy), structure (polity), and process (politics), we uncover the multiple ways in which data are not neutral or apolitical ‘inputs’ into climate law and governance. Rather, drawing on current examples from governance practice, we show how data shape what is to be governed, what it means to govern, how governance is done, and for whom…(More)”.

Article by Christopher Mims: “If social media were a literal ecosystem, it would be about as healthy as Cleveland’s Cuyahoga River in the 1960s—when it was so polluted it repeatedly caught fire.

Those conflagrations inspired the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency and the passage of the Clean Water Act. But in 2026, nothing comparable exists for our befouled media landscape.

Which means it’s up to us, as individuals, to stop ingesting the pink slime of AI slop, the forever chemicals of outrage bait and the microplastics of misinformation-for-profit. In an age in which information on the internet is so abundant and so low-quality that it’s essentially noise, job number one is to fight our evolutionary instinct to absorb all available information, and instead filter out unreliable sources and bad data.

Fortunately, there’s a way: critical ignoring.

“It’s not total ignoring,” says Sam Wineburg, who coined the term in 2021. “It’s ignoring after you’ve checked out some initial signals. We think of it as constant vigilance over our own vulnerability.”

Critical ignoring was born of research that Wineburg, an emeritus professor of education at Stanford University, and others did on how the skills of professional fact-checkers could be taught to young people in school. Kids and adults alike need the ability to quickly evaluate the truth of a statement and the reliability of its source, they argued. Since then, the term has taken on a life of its own. It’s become an umbrella for a whole set of skills, some of which might seem counterintuitive.

Here’s the quick-and-dirty on how to start practicing critical ignoring in the year ahead…(More)”.

Paper by Woodrow Hartzog and Jessica M. Silbey: “Civic institutions—the rule of law, universities, and a free press—are the backbone of democratic life. They are the mechanisms through which complex societies encourage cooperation and stability, while also adapting to changing circumstances. The real superpower of institutions is their ability to evolve and adapt within a hierarchy of authority and a framework for roles and rules while maintaining legitimacy in the knowledge produced and the actions taken. Purpose-driven institutions built around transparency, cooperation, and accountability empower individuals to take intellectual risks and challenge the status quo. This happens through the machinations of interpersonal relationships within those institutions, which broaden perspectives and strengthen shared commitment to civic goals.

Unfortunately, the affordances of AI systems extinguish these institutional features at every turn. In this essay, we make one simple point: AI systems are built to function in ways that degrade and are likely to destroy our crucial civic institutions. The affordances of AI systems have the effect of eroding expertise, short-circuiting decision-making, and isolating people from each other. These systems are anathema to the kind of evolution, transparency, cooperation, and accountability that give vital institutions their purpose and sustainability. In short, current AI systems are a death sentence for civic institutions, and we should treat them as such…(More)”.

Article by R. Trebor Scholz & Mark Esposito: “The digital economy’s story often centers on stock prices and initial public offerings, but the processes and people behind it reveal a very different reality. Across outsourcing hubs like Nairobi, Manila, and Hyderabad, content moderators working for Facebook, OpenAI, and their subcontractors spend hours each day reviewing beheadings, sexual violence, child abuse, and hate speech to train and police AI systems. This form of labor has led many to report severe psychological harm, including depression, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress disorder. Investigations have documented suicide attempts among moderators in Kenya and the Philippines, alongside widespread reports of suicidal ideation linked to relentless exposure to traumatic content, low pay, and a lack of mental-health support. These incidents are not isolated tragedies, but rather symptoms of an industry structured to offload risk downward through opaque contracting chains while concentrating profit and control at the top.

These cases are a stark reminder that when technological systems are designed solely for extraction and efficiency, they isolate and break the people who sustain them. As artificial intelligence (AI) accelerates, we face a similar precipice. Without deliberate intervention, these extractive logics will scale globally, further concentrating power at the top, unless we choose to build a fundamentally different system…(More)”.

Book by Allison Pugh: “With the rapid development of artificial intelligence and labor-saving technologies like self-checkouts and automated factories, the future of work has never been more uncertain, and even jobs requiring high levels of human interaction are no longer safe. The Last Human Job explores the human connections that underlie our work, arguing that what people do for each other in these settings is valuable and worth preserving.

Drawing on in-depth interviews and observations with people in a broad range of professions—from physicians, teachers, and coaches to chaplains, therapists, caregivers, and hairdressers—Allison Pugh develops the concept of “connective labor,” a kind of work that relies on empathy, the spontaneity of human contact, and a mutual recognition of each other’s humanity. The threats to connective labor are not only those posed by advances in AI or apps; Pugh demonstrates how profit-driven campaigns imposing industrial logic shrink the time for workers to connect, enforce new priorities of data and metrics, and introduce standardized practices that hinder our ability to truly see each other. She concludes with profiles of organizations where connective labor thrives, offering practical steps for building a social architecture that works.

Vividly illustrating how connective labor enriches the lives of individuals and binds our communities together, The Last Human Job is a compelling argument for us to recognize, value, and protect humane work in an increasingly automated and disconnected world…(More)”.

Blog by Sarah Hubbard and Darshan Goux: “…Public officials now have a myriad of digital deliberation tools and programs to choose from. Some considerations for selecting which tool(s) to use include factors such as whether the technology solution is open-source vs. paid, data collection and retention policies, the engagement modalities it offers (e.g. video, audio, surveys, written input), as well as the procurement processes, staffing requirements, and the overall objectives or scale of the engagement.

Below are a few examples of technologies being used to support public deliberation processes today:

• Engaged California is an initiative and digital platform that aims to channel input on complex issues from the people directly to leaders in state government. Their first effort, Los Angeles wildfire recovery, turned submitted comments into a policy action plan for the State of California. The project leveraged the Ethelo platform and included multiple rounds of discussion.
• Bowling Green, Kentucky, launched their BG 2050 Project to envision the future of the city. The project leveraged Polis to collect input and cluster areas of consensus, and Google’s Sensemaker to analyze data. They engaged 10% of the Bowling Green population, generated thousands of ideas, and reported in post-surveys that 70% of participants felt more confident that their voice mattered and 83% of participants gained a better understanding of different viewpoints.
• Other platforms facilitate real-time, small-group, guided discussions online and may include automation features to manage speaking time, agendas, and more. The Stanford Online Deliberation Platform, Cortico, and Frankly are all tools that use technology to aid in these deliberative conservations. The Stanford Online Deliberation Platform has been used in more than 40 countries and has had over 100,000 hours of deliberation on the platform.
• Multi-purpose platforms such as Decidim provide infrastructure to enable everything from participatory budgeting to assemblies. The platform has over three million users and is used by more than 500 organizations around the world.

This is just a small sample of the current ecosystem and their applications. The organization People Powered maintains a larger list of digital participation platforms…(More)”.

A Primer by Adam Zable, Hannah Chafetz, and Stefaan G. Verhulst: “Philanthropic foundations around the world are beginning to experiment with artificial intelligence (AI) to review proposals, stay up-to-date on the latest research, communicate insights to different audiences, and more. However, questions remain around where AI is most valuable across the grant making cycle, when it should not be used, and what practices and policies are needed to ensure it is applied responsibly.

To address these questions, DATA4Philanthropy reviewed how AI is being used across the grantmaking cycle. This includes: problem definition, prioritization, strategy development, partner identification, grant management, and evaluation and learning. Drawing on desk research conducted between July and December 2025, the primer highlights several examples where philanthropies are already using AI in their work and how they are incorporating human judgement throughout the process. It concludes with a series of recommendations on how philanthropies might begin experimenting with AI…(More)”.

Article by Roula Khalaf: “Some headlines seem almost designed to elicit weary face-palm emojis on social media about the ignorance of the general public. So it was recently with the news that the UK public believes net migration rose last year (in fact, it fell by two-thirds).

It’s not the only recent instance of people venting about the public’s perceptions being out of touch with reality. Sir Mark Rowley, London’s police chief, told the FT it was “sad and quite frustrating” that more people didn’t know the city was “extraordinarily safe”.

“I think people have a whole load of different reasons for ignoring facts,” he said. “I think some people just want online clicks, some people are angry with the world generally.”

Even Donald Trump, the most successful populist politician in years, seems to have grown fed up with popular opinion. The so-called affordability crisis in the US is a “con job”, he said in December. “Just about everything is down.”

But have most people really become divorced from reality about policy issues they profess to care about, like crime, immigration and the cost of living? Or is something else going on?

Part of the problem is a disconnect between the metrics commonly used by economists, policymakers and journalists, and the ways in which people actually perceive change in their everyday lives. Inflation in the US may have fallen from a peak of more than 7 per cent in 2022 to less than 3 per cent, for example. But that still means prices are rising, just not as quickly as before.

Net migration, too, is in a way a measure of the rate of change. In the year to June 2025, net migration to the UK did indeed plummet by two-thirds. But that still meant a net increase of 204,000 people. And while the public might well notice when the pace of change suddenly speeds up around them, it’s probably harder to spot when it slows somewhat…(More)”.

Report by the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures: “Developed in close collaboration with a wide range of technical experts and market participants across the nature data value chain, these recommendations represent the culmination of four years of research and pilot testing about how best to respond to the nature data challenges identified by companies and financial institutions around the world.  

The eight recommendations proposed by the TNFD seek to catalyse a whole-of-value-chain mindset shift about the discoverability, quality and accessibility of nature-related data as a strategic global public good. Together, they also seek to unlock a much-needed new source of finance for the collection of essential state-of-nature data through the operation of a global common data facility. 

Summary of recommendations

The eight recommendations cover both state-of-nature data used by companies in their assessment of nature-related issues as well as reported data produced by companies, for example about their impacts and dependencies on nature. 

1. A set of nature data principles to help enhance the quality of state-of-nature data over time
2. An accompanying set of metadata standards for state-of-nature data
3. Proposed harmonisation of licensing and usage agreements to reduce the time and cost experienced by market participants to access state-of-nature data to support their assessment and reporting activities
4. A Nature Data Public Facility (NDPF) to provide open access to state-of-nature data related to key use cases for business and finance, including SMEs
5. Incentives and mechanism for companies to provide qualifying state-of-nature data they have collected on a proprietary basis back into the global public commons through the NDPF
6. A new international institution, a Nature Data Trust, to generate additional funding for state-of-nature data collection and aggregation by operating the NDPF and drive quality improvements across the value chain in accordance with the principals, metadata standards and common licensing arrangements recommended
7. A nature data measurement protocol to provide market participants with common measurement methodologies for a core set of nature-related dependency and impact metrics, including state-of-nature metrics
8. Proposal to develop a universal data collection and sharing protocol to streamline the sharing of company data on nature-related impacts and dependencies across value chains…(More)”.