Project Push creates an archive of news alerts from around the world

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Neel Dhanesha: “A little over a year ago, Matt Taylor began to feel like he was getting a few too many push notifications from the BBC News app.

It’s a feeling many of us can probably relate to. Many people, myself included, have turned off news notifications entirely in the past few months. Taylor, however, went in the opposite direction.

Instead of turning off notifications, he decided to see how the BBC — the most popular news app in the U.K., where Taylor lives —  compared to other news organizations around the world. So he dug out an old Google Pixel phone, downloaded 61 news apps onto it, and signed up for push notifications on all of them.

As notifications roll in, a custom-built script (made with the help of ChatGPT) uploads their text to a server and a Bluesky page, providing a near real-time view of push notifications from services around the world. Taylor calls it Project Push.

People who work in news “take the front page very seriously,” said Taylor, a product manager at the Financial Times who built Project Push in his spare time. “There are lots of editors who care a lot about that, but actually one of the most important people in the newsroom is the person who decides that they’re going to press a button that sends an immediate notification to millions of people’s phones.”

The Project Push feed is a fascinating portrait of the news today. There are the expected alerts — breaking news, updates to ongoing stories like the wars in Gaza and Ukraine, the latest shenanigans in Washington — but also:

— Updates on infrastructure plans that, without the context, become absolutely baffling (a train will instead be a bus?).

— Naked attempts to increase engagement.

— Culture updates that some may argue aren’t deserving of a push alert from the Associated Press.

— Whatever this is.

Taylor tells me he’s noticed some geographic differences in how news outlets approach push notifications. Publishers based in Asia and the Middle East, for example, send far more notifications than European or American ones; CNN Indonesia alone pushed about 17,000 of the 160,000 or so notifications Project Push has logged over the past year…(More)”.

Trump Taps Palantir to Compile Data on Americans

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Sheera Frenkel and Aaron Krolik: “In March, President Trump signed an executive order calling for the federal government to share data across agencies, raising questions over whether he might compile a master list of personal information on Americans that could give him untold surveillance power.

Mr. Trump has not publicly talked about the effort since. But behind the scenes, officials have quietly put technological building blocks into place to enable his plan. In particular, they have turned to one company: Palantir, the data analysis and technology firm.

The Trump administration has expanded Palantir’s work across the federal government in recent months. The company has received more than $113 million in federal government spending since Mr. Trump took office, according to public records, including additional funds from existing contracts as well as new contracts with the Department of Homeland Security and the Pentagon. (This does not include a $795 million contract that the Department of Defense awarded the company last week, which has not been spent.)

Representatives of Palantir are also speaking to at least two other agencies — the Social Security Administration and the Internal Revenue Service — about buying its technology, according to six government officials and Palantir employees with knowledge of the discussions.

The push has put a key Palantir product called Foundry into at least four federal agencies, including D.H.S. and the Health and Human Services Department. Widely adopting Foundry, which organizes and analyzes data, paves the way for Mr. Trump to easily merge information from different agencies, the government officials said…(More)“

Creating detailed portraits of Americans based on government data is not just a pipe dream. The Trump administration has already sought access to hundreds of data points on citizens and others through government databases, including their bank account numbers, the amount of their student debt, their medical claims and any disability status…(More)”.

Digital Democracy in a Divided Global Landscape

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

10 essays by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace: “A first set of essays analyzes how local actors are navigating the new tech landscape. Lillian Nalwoga explores the challenges and upsides of Starlink satellite internet deployment in Africa, highlighting legal hurdles, security risks, and concerns about the platform’s leadership. As African nations look to Starlink as a valuable tool in closing the digital divide, Nalwoga emphasizes the need to invest in strong regulatory frameworks to safeguard digital spaces. Jonathan Corpus Ong and Dean Jackson analyze the landscape of counter-disinformation funding in local contexts. They argue that there is a “mismatch” between the priorities of funders and the strategies that activists would like to pursue, resulting in “ineffective and extractive workflows.” Ong and Jackson isolate several avenues for structural change, including developing “big tent” coalitions of activists and strategies for localizing aid projects. Janjira Sombatpoonsiri examines the role of local actors in foreign influence operations in Southeast Asia. She highlights three motivating factors that drive local participation in these operations: financial benefits, the potential to gain an edge in domestic power struggles, and the appeal of anti-Western narratives.

A second set of essays explores evolving applications of digital repression…

A third set focuses on national strategies and digital sovereignty debates…

A fourth set explores pressing tech policy and regulatory questions…(More)”.

Representants and International Orders

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Book by Alena Drieschova: “Different units of international politics, such as states or the church, cannot be present in their entirety during international interactions. Political rule needs to be represented for international actors to coordinate their activities. Representants (i.e. maps, GDP, buildings, and diplomatic and warfare practices) establish collective understandings about the nature of authority and its configuration. Whilst representants are not exact replica, they highlight and omit certain features from the units they stand in for. In these inclusions and exclusions lies representants’ irreducible effect. This book studies how representants define the units of the international system and position them in relation to each other, thereby generating an international order. When existing representants change, the international order changes because the units are defined differently and stand in different relations to each other. Power is therefore defined differently. Spanning centuries of European history, Alena Drieschova traces the struggles between actors over these representations…(More)”.

Upgrading Democracies with Fairer Voting Methods

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Evangelos Pournaras, et al: “Voting methods are instrumental design element of democracies. Citizens use them to express and aggregate their preferences to reach a collective decision. However, voting outcomes can be as sensitive to voting rules as they are to people’s voting choices. Despite the significance and inter-disciplinary scientific progress on voting methods, several democracies keep relying on outdated voting methods that do not fit modern, pluralistic societies well, while lacking social innovation. Here, we demonstrate how one can upgrade real-world democracies, namely by using alternative preferential voting methods such as cumulative voting and the method of equal shares designed for a proportional representation of voters’ preferences. By rigorously assessing a new participatory budgeting approach applied in the city of Aarau, Switzerland, we unravel the striking voting outcomes of fair voting methods: more winning projects with the same budget and broader geographic and preference representation of citizens by the elected projects, in particular for voters who used to be under-represented, while promoting novel project ideas. We provide profound causal evidence showing that citizens prefer proportional voting methods, which possess strong legitimacy without the need of very technical specialized explanations. We also reveal strong underlying democratic values exhibited by citizens who support fair voting methods such as altruism and compromise. These findings come with a global momentum to unleash a new and long-awaited participation blueprint of how to upgrade democracies…(More)”.

Amplifying Human Creativity and Problem Solving with AI Through Generative Collective Intelligence

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Thomas P. Kehler, Scott E. Page, Alex Pentland, Martin Reeves and John Seely Brown: “We propose a new framework for human-AI collaboration that amplifies the distinct capabilities
of both. This framework, which we call Generative Collective Intelligence (GCI), shifts AI to the
group/social level and employs AI in dual roles: as interactive agents and as technology that
accumulates, organizes, and leverages knowledge. By creating a cognitive bridge between
human reasoning and AI models, GCI can overcome limitations of purely algorithmic
approaches to problem-solving and decision-making. The framework demonstrates how AI can
be reframed as a social and cultural technology that enables groups to solve complex problems
through structured collaboration that transcends traditional communication barriers. We describe
the mathematical foundations of GCI based on comparative judgment and minimum regret
principles, and illustrate its applications across domains including climate adaptation, healthcare
transformation, and civic participation. By combining human creativity with AI’s computational
capabilities, GCI offers a promising approach to addressing complex societal challenges that
neither human or machines can solve alone…(More)”.

Leveraging Citizen Data to Improve Public Services and Measure Progress Toward Sustainable Development Goal 16

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Dilek Fraisl: “This paper presents the results of a pilot study conducted in Ghana that utilized citizen data approaches for monitoring a governance indicator within the SDG framework, focusing on indicator 16.6.2 citizen satisfaction with public services. This indicator is a crucial measure of governance quality, as emphasized by the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) through target 16.6 Develop effective, accountable, and transparent institutions at all levels. Indicator 16.6.2 specifically measures satisfaction with key public services, including health, education, and other government services, such as government-issued identification documents through a survey. However, with only 5 years remaining to achieve the SDGs, the lack of data continues to pose a significant challenge in monitoring progress toward this target, particularly regarding the experiences of marginalized populations. Our findings suggest that well-designed citizen data initiatives can effectively capture the experiences of marginalized individuals and communities. Additionally, they can serve as valuable supplements to official statistics, providing crucial data on population groups typically underrepresented in traditional surveys…(More)”.

Ethical implications related to processing of personal data and artificial intelligence in humanitarian crises: a scoping review

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Tino Kreutzer et al: “Humanitarian organizations are rapidly expanding their use of data in the pursuit of operational gains in effectiveness and efficiency. Ethical risks, particularly from artificial intelligence (AI) data processing, are increasingly recognized yet inadequately addressed by current humanitarian data protection guidelines. This study reports on a scoping review that maps the range of ethical issues that have been raised in the academic literature regarding data processing of people affected by humanitarian crises….

We identified 16,200 unique records and retained 218 relevant studies. Nearly one in three (n = 66) discussed technologies related to AI. Seventeen studies included an author from a lower-middle income country while four included an author from a low-income country. We identified 22 ethical issues which were then grouped along the four ethical value categories of autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice. Slightly over half of included studies (n = 113) identified ethical issues based on real-world examples. The most-cited ethical issue (n = 134) was a concern for privacy in cases where personal or sensitive data might be inadvertently shared with third parties. Aside from AI, the technologies most frequently discussed in these studies included social media, crowdsourcing, and mapping tools.

Studies highlight significant concerns that data processing in humanitarian contexts can cause additional harm, may not provide direct benefits, may limit affected populations’ autonomy, and can lead to the unfair distribution of scarce resources. The increase in AI tool deployment for humanitarian assistance amplifies these concerns. Urgent development of specific, comprehensive guidelines, training, and auditing methods is required to address these ethical challenges. Moreover, empirical research from low and middle-income countries, disproportionally affected by humanitarian crises, is vital to ensure inclusive and diverse perspectives. This research should focus on the ethical implications of both emerging AI systems, as well as established humanitarian data management practices…(More)”.

Engagement Integrity: Ensuring Legitimacy at a time of AI-Augmented Participation

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Stefaan G. Verhulst: “As participatory practices are increasingly tech-enabled, ensuring engagement integrity is becoming more urgent. While considerable scholarly and policy attention has been paid to information integrity (OECD, 2024; Gillwald et al., 2024; Wardle & Derakhshan, 2017; Ghosh & Scott, 2018), including concerns about disinformation, misinformation, and computational propaganda, the integrity of engagement itself — how to ensure collective decision-making is not tech manipulated — remains comparatively under-theorized and under-protected. I define engagement integrity as the procedural fairness and resistance to manipulation of tech-enabled deliberative and participatory processes.

My definition is different from prior discussions of engagement integrity, which mainly emphasized ethical standards when scientists engage with the public (e.g., in advisory roles, communication, or co-research). The concept is particularly salient in light of recent innovations that aim to lower the transaction costs of engagement using artificial intelligence (AI) (Verhulst, 2018). From AI-facilitated citizen assemblies (Simon et al., 2023) to natural language processing (NLP) -enhanced policy proposal platforms (Grobbink & Peach, 2020) to automated analysis of unstructured direct democracy proposals (Grobbink & Peach, 2020) to large-scale deliberative polls augmented with agentic AI (Mulgan, 2022), these developments promise to enhance inclusion, scalability, and sense-making. However, they also create new attack surfaces and vectors of influence that could undermine legitimacy.

This concern is not speculative…(More)”.

The Global Data Barometer 2nd edition: A Shared Compass for Navigating the Data Landscape

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Report by the Global Data Barometer: “Across the globe, we’re at a turning point. From artificial intelligence and digital governance to public transparency and service delivery, data is now a fundamental force shaping how our societies function and who they serve. It holds tremendous promise to drive inclusive growth, foster accountability, and support urgent action on global challenges. And yet, access to high-quality, usable data is becoming increasingly constrained.

Some, like Verhulst (2024), have begun calling this moment a “data winter,” a period marked by shrinking openness, rising inequality in access, and growing fragmentation in how data is governed and used. This trend poses a risk not just to innovation but to the democratic values that underpin trust, participation, and accountability.

In this complex landscape, evidence matters more than ever. That is why we are proud to launch the Second Edition of the Global Data Barometer (GDB), a collaborative and comparative study that tracks the state of data for the public good across 43 countries, with a focused lens on Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) and Africa…

The Barometer tracks countries across four dimensions: governance, capabilities, and availability, while also exploring key cross-cutting areas like AI readiness, inclusion, and data use. Here are some of the key takeaways:

  • The Implementation Gap

Many countries have adopted laws and frameworks for data governance, but there is a stark gap between policy and practice. Without strong institutions and dedicated capacity, even well-designed frameworks fall short.

  • The Role of Skills and Infrastructure

Data does not flow or translate into value without people and systems in place. Across both Latin America and the Caribbean and Africa, we see underinvestment in public sector skills, training, and the infrastructure needed to manage and reuse data effectively.

  • AI Is Moving Faster Than Governance

AI is increasingly present in national strategies, but very few countries have clear policies to guide its ethical use. Governance frameworks rarely address issues like algorithmic bias, data quality, or the accountability of AI-driven decision-making.

  • Open Data Needs Reinvestment

Many countries once seen as open data champions are struggling to sustain their efforts. Legal mandates are not always matched by technical implementation or resources. As a result, open data initiatives risk losing momentum.

  • Transparency Tools Are Missing

Key datasets that support transparency and anti-corruption, such as lobbying registers, beneficial ownership data, and political finance records, are often missing or fragmented. This makes it hard to follow the money or hold institutions to account.

  • Inclusion Is Still Largely Symbolic

Despite commitments to equity, inclusive data governance remains the exception. Data is rarely published in Indigenous or widely spoken non-official languages. Accessibility for persons with disabilities is often treated as a recommendation rather than a requirement.

  • Interoperability Remains a Barrier

Efforts to connect datasets across government, such as on procurement, company data, or political integrity, are rare. Without common standards or identifiers, it is difficult to track influence or evaluate policy impact holistically…(More)”.