Stefaan Verhulst

Ricard Espelt and Monica Garriga  at Open Democracy: “The impact of digital platforms in recent years affects all areas and all sorts of organizations: from production to consumption, from political parties to social movements, from business to public administration, trade unions, universities or the mass media. The disruption they generate is cross-section and intergenerational. Undoubtedly, their outstanding assets – at least from a discursive point of view –, are self-management and disintermediation. Today, through technology, people can participate actively in processes related to any particular activity. This is why we often talk about digital platforms as tools for democratizing participation, overcoming as they do the traditional tyranny of space and time. If we analyze them in detail, however, and look at the organizations that promote them, we realize that the improvement in citizen involvement tends to vary, sometimes considerably, as does the logic behind their approach…..

La Teixidora, a democratic digital platform

Being aware now of the risks of partial evaluation of the impact of technology and the key elements to be considered in analyzing it, let us return to our starting point: democratizing participation. Given the importance of local assessment of global digital tools, let us now see the case of the multimedia platform La Teixidora, which allows us to synthesize the aspects which, in our opinion, shape democratic participation.

Platform cooperativism or open cooperativism, whether it focuses on the social strength of cooperative values or on the need to reappropriate common goods, calls for a detailed critical review of the local activity of its digital platforms.

This initiative, launched in 2016 in Barcelona, organizes in real time a collaborative structure with the aim of mapping distributed knowledge generated in different parts of the city during conferences, meetings, workshops and other offline meeting formats related to technopolitics and the commons. To do this, it appropriates several open source tools (collaborative editor, wiki, content storage spaces) and uses a Creative Commons license which, while recognizing authorship, allows anyone to adapt the contents and even use them commercially. Two significant apps illustrate the value of its functionalities in relation to democratizing participation:

1. In March 2016 La Teixidora covered, with a team of some twenty people, a debate on Collaborative Economy (Economies Col·laboratives Procomuns). The classified data were then transferred to the Decidim Barcelona platform, which has helped to define, through a broad participatory process, the Municipal Action Plan of the Barcelona City Council.
2. At the same time, the tool has been used to monitor the fifteen teams which have been following the economic development program La Comunificadora, whose aim is the promotion of social transformation projects and the advancement of entrepreneurship. Through La Teixidora, the participants have been able to establish a space for exchanging knowledge among them, with the mentors, with the city service managers and with citizens in general. All its contents are open and reusable.

In short, through this platform, both processes have been able not only to contribute proposals, but also to form an open learning space. And by mapping participation, which makes these processes – both of which are promoted by the Public Administration – transparent and accountable, thus improving their democratic quality. At the same time, the information and the learning from their use are helping to redesign the technological platform itself and adapt it to the needs of the communities involved….(More)”.

A Field Book for World Food Program Staff: “The field book outlines the main risks for staff engaged in mobile data collection and helps promote responsible data collection/storage/sharing in the very complex environment in which WFP operates…(Conducting Mobile Surveys Responsibly: A Field Book for WFP Staff, May 2017)

Wasim Ahmed at Data Driven Journalism: “Journalists may wish to use data from social media platforms in order to provide greater insight and context to a news story. For example, journalists may wish to examine the contagion of hashtags and whether they are capable of achieving political or social change. Moreover, newsrooms may also wish to tap into social media posts during unfolding crisis events. For example, to find out who tweeted about a crisis event first, and to empirically examine the impact of social media.

Furthermore, Twitter users and accounts such as WikiLeaks may operate outside the constraints of traditional journalism, and therefore it becomes important to have tools and mechanisms in place in order to examine these kinds of influential users. For example, it was found that those who were backing Marine Le Pen on Twitter could have been users who had an affinity to Donald Trump.

There remains a number of different methods for analysing social media data. Take text analytics, for example, which can include using sentiment analysis to place bulk social media posts into categories of a particular feeling, such as positive, negative, or neutral. Or machine learning, which can automatically assign social media posts to a number of different topics.

There are other methods such as social network analysis, which examines online communities and the relationships between them. A number of qualitative methodologies also exist, such as content analysis and thematic analysis, which can be used to manually label social media posts. From a journalistic perspective, network analysis may be of importance initially via tools such as NodeXL. This is because it can quickly provide an overview of influential Twitter users alongside a topic overview.

From an industry standpoint, there has been much focus on gaining insight into users’ personalities, through services such as IBM Watson’s Personality Insights service. This uses linguistic analytics to derive intrinsic personality insights, such as emotions like anxiety, self-consciousness, and depression. This information can then be used by marketers to target certain products; for example, anti-anxiety medication to users who are more anxious…(An overview of tools for 2017).”

Timothy Revell at New Scientist: “The use of data analytics by political parties has piqued the interest of the Information Commissioner’s Office, a UK public body that protects data rights. On Wednesday it launched a formal investigation into the targeting of voters through social media by political parties, warning that any messages sent to people based on identifying data could be breaking the law.

“Given the big data revolution, it is understandable that political campaigns are exploring the potential of advanced data analysis tools to help win votes,” Elizabeth Denham, the information commissioner, writes on the ICO’s blog. However, “the public have the right to expect” that this takes place in accordance with existing data protection laws, she adds.

Political parties are able to use Facebook to target voters with different messages, tailoring the advert to recipients based on their demographic. In the 2015 UK general election, the Conservative party spent £1.2 million on Facebook campaigns and the Labour party £16,000. It is expected that Labour will vastly increase that spend for the general election on 8 June….

Political parties and third-party companies are allowed to collect data from sites like Facebook and Twitter that lets them tailor these ads to broadly target different demographics. However, if those ads target identifiable individuals, it runs afoul of the law….(More)”

I suspect that we almost don’t notice this pattern because it’s hard to imagine what an alternative focus of tech development might be. Most of the news we get barraged with is about algorithms, AI, robots and self driving cars, all of which fit this pattern, though there are indeed many technological innovations underway that have nothing to do with eliminating human interaction from our lives. CRISPR-cas9 in genetics, new films that can efficiently and cheaply cool houses and quantum computing to name a few, but what we read about most and what touches us daily is the trajectory towards less human involvement. Note: I don’t consider chat rooms and product reviews as “human interaction”; they’re mediated and filtered by a screen.

I am not saying these developments are not efficient and convenient; this is not a judgement regarding the services and technology. I am simply noticing a pattern and wondering if that pattern means there are other possible roads we could be going down, and that the way we’re going is not in fact inevitable, but is (possibly unconsciously) chosen.

Here are some examples of tech that allows for less human interaction…

Lastly, “Social” media- social “interaction” that isn’t really social.

While the appearance on social networks is one of connection—as Facebook and others frequently claim—the fact is a lot of social media is a simulation of real social connection. As has been in evidence recently, social media actually increases divisions amongst us by amplifying echo effects and allowing us to live in cognitive bubbles. We are fed what we already like or what our similarly inclined friends like… or more likely now what someone has payed for us to see in an ad that mimics content. In this way, we actually become less connected except to those in our group…..

Many transformative movements in the past succeed based on leaders, agreed upon principles and organization. Although social media is a great tool for rallying people and bypassing government channels, it does not guarantee eventual success.

Social media is not really social—ticking boxes and having followers and getting feeds is NOT being social—it’s a screen simulation of human interaction. Human interaction is much more nuanced and complicated than what happens online. Engineers like things that are quantifiable. Smells, gestures, expression, tone of voice, etc. etc.—in short, all the various ways we communicate are VERY hard to quantify, and those are often how we tell if someone likes us or not….

To repeat what I wrote above—humans are capricious, erratic, emotional, irrational and biased in what sometimes seem like counterproductive ways. I’d argue that though those might seem like liabilities, many of those attributes actually work in our favor. Many of our emotional responses have evolved over millennia, and they are based on the probability that our responses, often prodded by an emotion, will more likely than not offer the best way to deal with a situation….

Our random accidents and odd behaviors are fun—they make life enjoyable. I’m wondering what we’re left with when there are fewer and fewer human interactions. Remove humans from the equation and we are less complete as people or as a society. “We” do not exist as isolated individuals—we as individuals are inhabitants of networks, we are relationships. That is how we prosper and thrive….(More)”.

Open Data Barometer: “Produced by the World Wide Web Foundation as a collaborative work of the Open Data for Development (OD4D) network and with the support of the Omidyar Network, the Open Data Barometer (ODB) aims to uncover the true prevalence and impact of open data initiatives around the world. It analyses global trends, and provides comparative data on countries and regions using an in-depth methodology that combines contextual data, technical assessments and secondary indicators.

Covering 115 jurisdictions in the fourth edition, the Barometer ranks governments on:

• Readiness for open data initiatives.
• Implementation of open data programmes.
• Impact that open data is having on business, politics and civil society.

After three successful editions, the fourth marks another step towards becoming a global policymaking tool with a participatory and inclusive process and a strong regional focus. This year’s Barometer includes an assessment of government performance in fulfilling the Open Data Charter principles.

The Barometer is a truly global and collaborative effort, with input from more than 100 researchers and government representatives. It takes over six months and more than 10,000 hours of research work to compile. During this process, we address more than 20,000 questions and respond to more than 5,000 comments and suggestions.

The ODB global report is a summary of some of the most striking findings. The full data and methodology is available, and is intended to support secondary research and inform better decisions for the progression of open data policies and practices across the world…(More)”.

DARPA: “What’s the ground truth on artificial intelligence (AI)? In this video, John Launchbury, the Director of DARPA’s Information Innovation Office (I2O), attempts to demystify AI–what it can do, what it can’t do, and where it is headed. Through a discussion of the “three waves of AI” and the capabilities required for AI to reach its full potential, John provides analytical context to help understand the roles AI already has played, does play now, and could play in the future. (Slides can be downloaded here)….”

The paper sets out a framework of open public service reforms, as well as guidance, recommendations, resources and case studies. We will be updating the guide over time, so please do get in touch to let us know what you think….Download the report.“

About the BHUB: “There is no shortage of difficult problems in the world. Yet all too often, innovative solutions remain buried in academic research.

The B-Hub puts new tools in the hands of individuals and organizations working across the globe to improve people’s lives. The B-Hub is not an index of lengthy research papers; it’s a curated collection of innovations. Each innovation describes a behavioral product or design that has been rigorously tested in the real-world, all with a rich collection of implementation details to make replication in your own context possible.

In short, The Behavioral Evidence Hub bridges the longstanding gap between research and the real world by collecting evidence-based, behaviorally-informed solutions and bringing them directly to the people who can put them to work. The path to expansive social impact is now clearer than ever…(More)”.

Simon Parkin at MIT Technology Review: “In any fictionalized universe, the distinction between playful antagonism and earnest harassment can be difficult to discern. Name-calling between friends playing a video game together is often a form of camaraderie. Between strangers, however, similar words assume a different, more troublesome quality. Being able to distinguish between the two is crucial for any video-game maker that wants to foster a welcoming community.