Stefaan Verhulst

Press Release: “The House Judiciary Committee’s Antitrust Subcommittee today released the findings of its more than 16-month long investigation into the state of competition in the digital economy, especially the challenges presented by the dominance of Apple, Amazon, Google, and Facebook and their business practices.

The report, entitled Investigation of Competition in the Digital Marketplace: Majority Staff Report and Recommendations, totals more than 400 pages, marking the culmination of an investigation that included seven congressional hearings, the production of nearly 1.3 million internal documents and communications, submissions from 38 antitrust experts, and interviews with more than 240 market participants, former employees of the investigated platforms, and other individuals. It can be downloaded by clicking here.

“As they exist today, Apple, Amazon, Google, and Facebook each possess significant market power over large swaths of our economy. In recent years, each company has expanded and exploited their power of the marketplace in anticompetitive ways,” said Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (NY-10) and Antitrust Subcommittee Chairman David N. Cicilline (RI-01) in a joint statement. “Our investigation leaves no doubt that there is a clear and compelling need for Congress and the antitrust enforcement agencies to take action that restores competition, improves innovation, and safeguards our democracy. This Report outlines a roadmap for achieving that goal.”

After outlining the challenges presented due to the market domination of Amazon, Apple, Google, and Facebook, the report walks through a series of possible remedies to (1) restore competition in the digital economy, (2) strengthen the antitrust laws, and (3) reinvigorate antitrust enforcement.

The slate of recommendations include:

• Structural separations to prohibit platforms from operating in lines of business that depend on or interoperate with the platform;
• Prohibiting platforms from engaging in self-preferencing;
• Requiring platforms to make its services compatible with competing networks to allow for interoperability and data portability;
• Mandating that platforms provide due process before taking action against market participants;
• Establishing a standard to proscribe strategic acquisitions that reduce competition;
• Improvements to the Clayton Act, the Sherman Act, and the Federal Trade Commission Act, to bring these laws into line with the challenges of the digital economy;
• Eliminating anticompetitive forced arbitration clauses;
• Strengthening the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice;
• And promoting greater transparency and democratization of the antitrust agencies….(More)”.

Introductory letter to a new whitepaper published by Siegel Family Endowment that outlines a new framework for understanding and funding infrastructure: “This story begins, as many set in New York City do, with the subway. As transportation enthusiasts, we’re fascinated by trains, especially the remarkable system that runs above and below the city’s streets. It was the discovery of this shared passion for understanding how our subway system works that got us talking about infrastructure a few years ago.

Infrastructure, in the most traditional sense, brings to mind physical constructions: city streets, power lines, the pipes that carry water into your home. But what about all the other things that make society function? Having seen the decline in investment in the country’s physical infrastructure, and aware of the many ways the digital world is upending our definition of the term, we began exploring how Siegel Family Endowment could play a role in the future of infrastructure.

Over the past two years of research and conversations with partners across the field, we’ve realized that our nation’s infrastructure is due for a reset. Hearing the term should evoke a different image: an interconnected web of assets, seen and unseen, that make up the foundation upon which the complicated machinery of modern society operates. It’s inherently multidimensional.

In 2020, the United States has reckoned with a health pandemic and a watershed moment in the fight for racial equity. These challenges highlight how relevant it is to reconsider what society deems the most critical, foundational assets for its citizens—and to ensure they have access to those assets.

Funding infrastructure is often considered the responsibility of government agencies. Yet many of our peers in philanthropy have made important investments in the field. These include working with local governments to fund research, promote novel forms of public-private partnership, and, ultimately, better serve citizens. And if infrastructure is viewed through the broader lens we argue for in this paper, it becomes clear just how much philanthropy, the nonprofit sector, and private entities are investing in our digital and social ecosystems.

We believe that we can do more—and better—if we commit as a country to adopting some of the principles outlined in this paper. However, we also consider this the beginning of a conversation. The time for us to think bigger and bolder about infrastructure is here. Our challenge now is to design it so that more people may thrive….(More)”.

Paper by Merve Hickok: “As the use of artificial intelligence (AI) systems became significantly more prevalent in recent years, the concerns on how these systems collect, use and process big data also increased. To address these concerns and advocate for ethical and responsible development and implementation of AI, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), research centers, private companies, and governmental agencies published more than 100 AI ethics principles and guidelines. This first wave was followed by a series of suggested frameworks, tools, and checklists that attempt a technical fix to issues brought up in the high-level principles. Principles are important to create a common understanding for priorities and are the groundwork for future governance and opportunities for innovation. However, a review of these documents based on their country of origin and funding entities shows that private companies from US-West axis dominate the conversation. Several cases surfaced in the meantime which demonstrate biased algorithms and their impact on individuals and society. The field of AI ethics is urgently calling for tangible action to move from high-level abstractions and conceptual arguments towards applying ethics in practice and creating accountability mechanisms. However, lessons must be learned from the shortcomings of AI ethics principles to ensure the future investments, collaborations, standards, codes or legislation reflect the diversity of voices and incorporate the experiences of those who are already impacted by the biased algorithms….(More)”.

Commentary by James A. Shaw, Nayha Sethi & Christine K. Cassel: “… Social license refers to the informal permissions granted to institutions such as governments or corporations by members of the public to carry out a particular set of activities. Much of the literature on the topic of social license has arisen in the field of natural resources management, emphasizing issues that include but go beyond environmental stewardship⁴. In their seminal work on social license in the pulp and paper industry, Gunningham et al. defined social license as the “demands and expectations” placed on organizations by members of civil society which “may be tougher than those imposed by regulation”; these expectations thereby demand actions that go beyond existing legal rules to demonstrate concern for the interests of publics. We use the plural term “publics” as opposed to the singular “public” to illustrate that stakeholder groups to which organizations must appeal are often diverse and varied in their assessments of whether a given organizational activity is acceptable⁶. Despite the potentially fragmented views of various publics, the concept of social license is considered in a holistic way (either an organization has it or does not). Social license is closely related to public trust, and where publics view a particular institution as trustworthy it is more likely to have social license to engage in activities such as the collection and use of personal data⁷.

The question of how the leaders of an organization might better understand whether they have social license for a particular set of activities has also been addressed in the literature. In a review of literature on social license, Moffat et al. highlighted disagreement in the research community about whether social license can be accurately measured⁴. Certain groups of researchers emphasize that because of the intangible nature of social license, accurate measurement will never truly be possible. Others propose conceptual models of the determinants of social license, and establish surveys that assess those determinants to indicate the presence or absence of social license in a given context. However, accurate measurement of social license remains a point of debate….(More)”.

Jasper Bovenberg, David Peloquin, Barbara Bierer, Mark Barnes, and Bartha Maria Knoppers at Science: “Since the advent of the European Union (EU) General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in 2018, the biomedical research community has struggled to share data with colleagues and consortia outside the EU, as the GDPR limits international transfers of personal data. A July 2020 ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) reinforced obstacles to sharing, and even data transfer to enable essential research into coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been restricted in a recent Guidance of the European Data Protection Board (EDPB). We acknowledge the valid concerns that gave rise to the GDPR, but we are concerned that the GDPR’s limitations on data transfers will hamper science globally in general and biomedical science in particular (see the text box) (1)—even though one stated objective of the GDPR is that processing of personal data should serve humankind, and even though the GDPR explicitly acknowledges that the right to the protection of personal data is not absolute and must be considered in relation to its function in society and be balanced against other fundamental rights. We examine whether there is room under the GDPR for EU biomedical researchers to share data from the EU with the rest of the world to facilitate biomedical research. We then propose solutions for consideration by either the EU legislature, the EU Commission, or the EDPB in its planned Guidance on the processing of health data for scientific research. Finally, we urge the EDPB to revisit its recent Guidance on COVID-19 research….(More)“.

Book by By Xiaowei R. Wang: “In Blockchain Chicken Farm, the technologist and writer Xiaowei Wang explores the political and social entanglements of technology in rural China. Their discoveries force them to challenge the standard idea that rural culture and people are backward, conservative, and intolerant. Instead, they find that rural China has not only adapted to rapid globalization but has actually innovated the technology we all use today. From pork farmers using AI to produce the perfect pig, to disruptive luxury counterfeits and the political intersections of e-commerce villages, Wang unravels the ties between globalization, technology, agriculture, and commerce in unprecedented fashion. Accompanied by humorous “Sinofuturist” recipes that frame meals as they transform under new technology, Blockchain Chicken Farm is an original and probing look into innovation, connectivity, and collaboration in the digitized rural world.

FSG Originals × Logic dissects the way technology functions in everyday lives. The titans of Silicon Valley, for all their utopian imaginings, never really had our best interests at heart: recent threats to democracy, truth, privacy, and safety, as a result of tech’s reckless pursuit of progress, have shown as much. We present an alternate story, one that delights in capturing technology in all its contradictions and innovation, across borders and socioeconomic divisions, from history through the future, beyond platitudes and PR hype, and past doom and gloom. Our collaboration features four brief but provocative forays into the tech industry’s many worlds, and aspires to incite fresh conversations about technology focused on nuanced and accessible explorations of the emerging tools that reorganize and redefine life today….(More)”.

Paper by Rebecca Crootof and BJ Ard: “Technological breakthroughs challenge core legal assumptions and generate regulatory debates. Practitioners and scholars usually tackle these questions by examining the impacts of a particular technology within conventional legal subjects — say, by considering how drones should be regulated under privacy law, property law, or the law of armed conflict. While individually useful, these siloed analyses mask the repetitive nature of the underlying questions and necessitate the regular reinvention of the regulatory wheel. An overarching framework — one which can be employed across technologies and across subjects — is needed.

The fundamental challenge of tech-law is not how to best regulate novel technologies, but rather how to best address familiar forms of uncertainty in new contexts. Accordingly, we construct a three-part framework, designed to encourage a more thoughtful resolution of tech-law questions. It:

(1) delineates the three types of tech-fostered legal uncertainty, which facilitates recognizing common issues;

(2) requires a considered selection between permissive and precautionary approaches to technological regulation, given their differing distributive consequences; and

(3) highlights tech-law-specific considerations when extending extant law, creating new law, or reassessing a legal regime.

This structure emphasizes the possibility of considered and purposeful intervention in the iterative and co-constructive relationship between law and technology. By making it easier to learn from the rich history of prior dilemmas and to anticipate future issues, this framework enables policymakers, judges, and other legal actors to make more just and effective regulatory decisions going forward…(More)”.

Today, The GovLab is  excited to launch a new platform which seeks to monitor, analyze and guide how AI is being governed in cities around the world: AI Localism. 

AI Localism refers to the actions taken by local decision-makers to address the use of AI within a city or community.  AI Localism has often emerged because of gaps left by incomplete state, national or global governance frameworks.

“AI Localism offers both immediacy and proximity. Because it is managed within tightly defined geographic regions, it affords policymakers a better understanding of the tradeoffs involved. By calibrating algorithms and AI policies for local conditions, policymakers have a better chance of creating positive feedback loops that will result in greater effectiveness and accountability.”

The initial AI Localism projects include:

The Ethics and Practice of AI Localism at a Time of Covid-19 and Beyond – In collaboration with the TUM School of Governance and University of Melbourne The GovLab will conduct a comparative review of current practices worldwide to gain a better understanding of successful AI Localism in the context of COVID-19 as to inform and guide local leaders and city officials towards best practices.

Responsible AI at the Local Level – Together with the NYU Center Responsible AI, The GovLab will seek to develop an interactive repository and a set of training modules of Responsible AI approaches at the local level. 

Join us as we seek to understand and develop new forms of governance to guide local leaders towards responsible AI implementation or share any effort you are working on to establishing responsible AI at the local level by visiting: http://ailocalism.org

Open Access Book edited by Danny Lämmerhirt, Ana Brandusescu, Natalia Domagala & Patrick Enaholo: “Open data and its effects on society are always woven into infrastructural legacies, social relations, and the political economy. This raises questions about how our understanding and engagement with open data shifts when we focus on its situated use. 

To shed a light on these questions, Situating Open Data provides several empirical accounts of open data practices, the local implementation of global initiatives, and the development of new open data ecosystems. Drawing on case studies in different countries and contexts, the chapters demonstrate the practices and actors involved in open government data initiatives unfolding within different socio-political settings. 

The book proposes three recommendations for researchers, policy-makers and practitioners. First, beyond upskilling through ‘data literacy’ programmes, open data initiatives should be specified through the kinds of data practices and effects they generate. Second, global visions of open data implementation require more studies of the resonances and tensions created in localised initiatives. And third, research into open data ecosystems requires more attention to the histories and legacies of information infrastructures and how these shape who benefits from open data flows. 

As such, this volume departs from the framing of data as a resource to be deployed. Instead, it proposes a prism of different data practices in different contexts through which to study the social relations, capacities, infrastructural histories and power structures affecting open data initiatives. It is hoped that the contributions collected in Situating Open Data will spark critical reflection about the way open data is locally practiced and implemented. The contributions should be of interest to open data researchers, advocates, and those in or advising government administrations designing and rolling out effective open data initiatives….(More)”.

Max Beverton Palmer at the New Statesman: “…In practice, governments must shift from delivering what they always have to ensuring people’s needs are met in the best possible way. This should open up delivery to partners from both the private and charity sectors, where they can provide a better service that delivers better value to citizens, and much greater engagement with the public.

To manage this shift, leaders will need to resolve three key trade-offs.

First, states must be able to give up control to encourage innovation while protecting quality and in-house capacity. They must create new frameworks to assess where to encourage more open policymaking and delivery and where to double down on the competencies and infrastructure only they can provide. Technology can help here, creating new levers to protect the public interest by governing services’ access to government platforms and datasets akin to app store guidelines.

Second, states must reorganise around scale economies underpinned by technology while moving delivery closer to people’s lives. They should provide the foundations that allow new services to operate, while letting go of controlling the last mile of service delivery. A better way forward is a more collaborative approach that encourages communities, charities and companies to design more tailored services on top of public-controlled infrastructure, enabling people to choose those which best meet their needs.

Third, governments must be able to better listen, engage with and adapt to peoples’ views without descending into mob-rule. A core part of product and service design both in business and in the public sector is iterating delivery according to user needs, but the feedback loops in policymaking are comparably non-existent. New tools can help leaders understand the plurality of public opinions and address the growing disconnect between public institutions and those they represent.

MaxGetting from the status quo to this more open model will be challenging. But action in four priority areas should provide a starting point: infrastructure, organisation, competition and engagement….(More)”