Complex Systems Change Starts with Those Who Use the Systems

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Madeleine Clarke & John Healy at Stanford Social Innovation Review: “Philanthropy, especially in the United States and Europe, is increasingly espousing the idea that transformative shifts in social care, education, and health systems are needed. Yet successful examples of systems-level reform are rare. Concepts such as collective impact (funder-driven, cross-sector collaboration), implementation science (methods to promote the systematic uptake of research findings), and catalytic philanthropy (funders playing a powerful role in mobilizing fundamental reforms) have gained prominence as pathways to this kind of change. These approaches tend to characterize philanthropy—usually foundations—as the central, heroic actor. Meanwhile, research on change within social and health services continues to indicate that deeply ingrained beliefs and practices, such as overly medicalized models of care for people with intellectual disabilities, and existing resource distribution, which often maintains the pay and conditions of professional groups, inhibits the introduction of reform into complex systems. A recent report by RAND, for example, showed that a $1 billion, seven-year initiative to improve teacher performance failed, and cited the complexity of the system and practitioners’ resistance to change as possible explanations. 

We believe the most effective way to promote systems-level social change is to place the voices of people who use social services—the people for whom change matters most—at the center of change processes. But while many philanthropic organizations tout the importance of listening to the “end beneficiaries” or “service users,” the practice nevertheless remains an underutilized methodology for countering systemic obstacles to change and, ultimately, reforming complex systems….(More)”.

Data-Sharing in IoT Ecosystems From a Competition Law Perspective: The Example of Connected Cars

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Wolfgang Kerber: “…analyses whether competition law can help to solve problems of access to data and interoperability in IoT ecosystems, where often one firm has exclusive control of the data produced by a smart device (and of the technical access to this device). Such a gatekeeper position can lead to the elimination of competition for aftermarket and other complementary services in such IoT ecosystems. This problem is analysed both from an economic and a legal perspective, and also generally for IoT ecosystems as well as for the much discussed problems of “access to in-vehicle data and re-sources” in connected cars, where the “extended vehicle” concept of the car manufacturers leads to such positions of exclusive control. The paper analyses, in particular, the competition rules about abusive behavior of dominant firms (Art. 102 TFEU) and of firms with “relative market power” (§ 20 (1) GWB) in German competition law. These provisions might offer (if appropriately applied and amended) at least some solutions for these data access problems. Competition law, however, might not be sufficient for dealing with all or most of these problems, i.e. that also additional solutions might be needed (data portability, direct data (access) rights, or sector-specific regulation)….(More)”.

Algorithmic Censorship on Social Platforms: Power, Legitimacy, and Resistance

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Jennifer Cobbe: “Effective content moderation by social platforms has long been recognised as both important and difficult, with numerous issues arising from the volume of information to be dealt with, the culturally sensitive and contextual nature of that information, and the nuances of human communication. Attempting to scale moderation efforts, various platforms have adopted, or signalled their intention to adopt, increasingly automated approaches to identifying and suppressing content and communications that they deem undesirable. However, algorithmic forms of online censorship by social platforms bring their own concerns, including the extensive surveillance of communications and the use of machine learning systems with the distinct possibility of errors and biases. This paper adopts a governmentality lens to examine algorithmic censorship by social platforms in order to assist in the development of a more comprehensive understanding of the risks of such approaches to content moderation. This analysis shows that algorithmic censorship is distinctive for two reasons: (1) it would potentially bring all communications carried out on social platforms within reach, and (2) it would potentially allow those platforms to take a much more active, interventionist approach to moderating those communications. Consequently, algorithmic censorship could allow social platforms to exercise an unprecedented degree of control over both public and private communications, with poor transparency, weak or non-existent accountability mechanisms, and little legitimacy. Moreover, commercial considerations would be inserted further into the everyday communications of billions of people. Due to the dominance of the web by a small number of social platforms, this control may be difficult or impractical to escape for many people, although opportunities for resistance do exist.

While automating content moderation may seem like an attractive proposition for both governments and platforms themselves, the issues identified in this paper are cause for concern and should be given serious consideration.Jennifer CobbeEffective content moderation by social platforms has long been recognised as both important and difficult, with numerous issues arising from the volume of information to be dealt with, the culturally sensitive and contextual nature of that information, and the nuances of human communication. Attempting to scale moderation efforts, various platforms have adopted, or signalled their intention to adopt, increasingly automated approaches to identifying and suppressing content and communications that they deem undesirable. However, algorithmic forms of online censorship by social platforms bring their own concerns, including the extensive surveillance of communications and the use of machine learning systems with the distinct possibility of errors and biases. This paper adopts a governmentality lens to examine algorithmic censorship by social platforms in order to assist in the development of a more comprehensive understanding of the risks of such approaches to content moderation.

This analysis shows that algorithmic censorship is distinctive for two reasons: (1) it would potentially bring all communications carried out on social platforms within reach, and (2) it would potentially allow those platforms to take a much more active, interventionist approach to moderating those communications. Consequently, algorithmic censorship could allow social platforms to exercise an unprecedented degree of control over both public and private communications, with poor transparency, weak or non-existent accountability mechanisms, and little legitimacy. Moreover, commercial considerations would be inserted further into the everyday communications of billions of people. Due to the dominance of the web by a small number of social platforms, this control may be difficult or impractical to escape for many people, although opportunities for resistance do exist. While automating content moderation may seem like an attractive proposition for both governments and platforms themselves, the issues identified in this paper are cause for concern and should be given serious consideration….(More)”.

How big data can affect your bank account – and life

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Alena Buyx, Barbara Prainsack and Aisling McMahon at The Conversation: “Mustafa loves good coffee. In his free time, he often browses high-end coffee machines that he cannot currently afford but is saving for. One day, travelling to a friend’s wedding abroad, he gets to sit next to another friend on the plane. When Mustafa complains about how much he paid for his ticket, it turns out that his friend paid less than half of what he paid, even though they booked around the same time.

He looks into possible reasons for this and concludes that it must be related to his browsing of expensive coffee machines and equipment. He is very angry about this and complains to the airline, who send him a lukewarm apology that refers to personalised pricing models. Mustafa feels that this is unfair but does not challenge it. Pursuing it any further would cost him time and money.

This story – which is hypothetical, but can and does occur – demonstrates the potential for people to be harmed by data use in the current “big data” era. Big data analytics involves using large amounts of data from many sources which are linked and analysed to find patterns that help to predict human behaviour. Such analysis, even when perfectly legal, can harm people.

Mustafa, for example, has likely been affected by personalised pricing practices whereby his search for high-end coffee machines has been used to make certain assumptions about his willingness to pay or buying power. This in turn may have led to his higher priced airfare. While this has not resulted in serious harm in Mustafa’s case, instances of serious emotional and financial harm are, unfortunately, not rare, including the denial of mortgages for individuals and risks to a person’s general credit worthiness based on associations with other individuals. This might happen if an individual shares some similar characteristics to other individuals who have poor repayment histories….(More)”.

Making data colonialism liveable: how might data’s social order be regulated?

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Nick Couldry & Ulises Mejias: “Humanity is currently undergoing a large-scale social, economic and legal transformation based on the massive appropriation of social life through data extraction. This quantification of the social represents a new colonial move. While the modes, intensities, scales and contexts of dispossession have changed, the underlying drive of today’s data colonialism remains the same: to acquire “territory” and resources from which economic value can be extracted by capital. The injustices embedded in this system need to be made “liveable” through a new legal and regulatory order….(More)”.

Towards “Government as a Platform”? Preliminary Lessons from Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by J. Ramon Gil‐Garcia, Paul Henman, and Martha Alicia Avila‐Maravilla: “In the last two decades, Internet portals have been used by governments around the world as part of very diverse strategies from service provision to citizen engagement. Several authors propose that there is an evolution of digital government reflected in the functionality and sophistication of these portals and other technologies. More recently, scholars and practitioners are proposing different conceptualizations of “government as a platform” and, for some, this could be the next stage of digital government. However, it is not clear what are the main differences between a sophisticated Internet portal and a platform. Therefore, based on an analysis of three of the most advanced national portals, this ongoing research paper explores to what extent these digital efforts clearly represent the basic characteristics of platforms. So, this paper explores questions such as: (1) to what extent current national portals reflect the characteristics of what has been called “government as a platform?; and (2) Are current national portals evolving towards “government as a platform”?…(More)”.

JPMorgan Creates ‘Volfefe’ Index to Track Trump Tweet Impact

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Tracy Alloway at Bloomberg: “Two of the largest Wall Street banks are trying to measure the market impact of Donald Trump’s tweets.

Analysts at JPMorgan Chase & Co. have created an index to quantify what they say are the growing effects on U.S. bond yields. Citigroup Inc.’s foreign exchange team, meanwhile, report that these micro-blogging missives are also becoming “increasingly relevant” to foreign-exchange moves.

JPMorgan’s “Volfefe Index,” named after Trump’s mysterious covfefe tweet from May 2017, suggests that the president’s electronic musings are having a statistically significant impact on Treasury yields. The number of market-moving Trump tweets has ballooned in the past month, with those including words such as “China,” “billion,” “products,” “Democrats” and “great” most likely to affect prices, the analysts found….

JPMorgan’s analysis looked at Treasury yields in the five minutes after a Trump tweet, and the index shows the rolling one-month probability that each missive is market-moving.

They found that the Volfefe Index can account for a “measurable fraction” of moves in implied volatility, seen in interest rate derivatives known as swaptions. That’s particularly apparent at the shorter end of the curve, with two- and five-year rates more impacted than 10-year securities.

Meanwhile, Citi’s work shows that the president’s tweets are generally followed by a stretch of higher volatility across global currency markets. And there’s little sign traders are growing numb to these messages….(More)”

The Why of the World

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Book review by Tim Maudlin of The Book of Why: The New Science of Cause and Effect by Judea Pearl and Dana Mackenzie: “Correlation is not causation.” Though true and important, the warning has hardened into the familiarity of a cliché. Stock examples of so-called spurious correlations are now a dime a dozen. As one example goes, a Pacific island tribe believed flea infestations to be good for one’s health because they observed that healthy people had fleas while sick people did not. The correlation is real and robust, but fleas do not cause health, of course: they merely indicate it. Fleas on a fevered body abandon ship and seek a healthier host. One should not seek out and encourage fleas in the quest to ward off sickness.

The rub lies in another observation: that the evidence for causation seems to lie entirely in correlations. But for seeing correlations, we would have no clue about causation. The only reason we discovered that smoking causes lung cancer, for example, is that we observed correlations in that particular circumstance. And thus a puzzle arises: if causation cannot be reduced to correlation, how can correlation serve as evidence of causation?

The Book of Why, co-authored by the computer scientist Judea Pearl and the science writer Dana Mackenzie, sets out to give a new answer to this old question, which has been around—in some form or another, posed by scientists and philosophers alike—at least since the Enlightenment. In 2011 Pearl won the Turing Award, computer science’s highest honor, for “fundamental contributions to artificial intelligence through the development of a calculus of probabilistic and causal reasoning,” and this book sets out to explain what all that means for a general audience, updating his more technical book on the same subject, Causality, published nearly two decades ago. Written in the first person, the new volume mixes theory, history, and memoir, detailing both the technical tools of causal reasoning Pearl has developed as well as the tortuous path by which he arrived at them—all along bucking a scientific establishment that, in his telling, had long ago contented itself with data-crunching analysis of correlations at the expense of investigation of causes. There are nuggets of wisdom and cautionary tales in both these aspects of the book, the scientific as well as the sociological…(More)”.

Sharenthood: Why We Should Think before We Talk about Our Kids Online

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Book by Leah Plunkett: “Our children’s first digital footprints are made before they can walk—even before they are born—as parents use fertility apps to aid conception, post ultrasound images, and share their baby’s hospital mug shot. Then, in rapid succession come terabytes of baby pictures stored in the cloud, digital baby monitors with built-in artificial intelligence, and real-time updates from daycare. When school starts, there are cafeteria cards that catalog food purchases, bus passes that track when kids are on and off the bus, electronic health records in the nurse’s office, and a school surveillance system that has eyes everywhere. Unwittingly, parents, teachers, and other trusted adults are compiling digital dossiers for children that could be available to everyone—friends, employers, law enforcement—forever. In this incisive book, Leah Plunkett examines the implications of “sharenthood”—adults’ excessive digital sharing of children’s data. She outlines the mistakes adults make with kids’ private information, the risks that result, and the legal system that enables “sharenting.”

Plunkett describes various modes of sharenting—including “commercial sharenting,” efforts by parents to use their families’ private experiences to make money—and unpacks the faulty assumptions made by our legal system about children, parents, and privacy. She proposes a “thought compass” to guide adults in their decision making about children’s digital data: play, forget, connect, and respect. Enshrining every false step and bad choice, Plunkett argues, can rob children of their chance to explore and learn lessons. The Internet needs to forget. We need to remember….(More)”.

Is Privacy and Personal Data Set to Become the New Intellectual Property?

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Leon Trakman, Robert Walters, and Bruno Zeller: “A pressing concern today is whether the rationale underlying the protection of personal data is itself a meaningful foundation for according intellectual property (IP) rights in personal data to data subjects. In particular, are there particular technological attributes about the collection, use and processing of personal data on the Internet, and global access to that data, that provide a strong justification to extend IP rights to data subjects? A central issue in so determining is whether data subjects need the protection of such rights in a technological revolution in which they are increasingly exposed to the use and abuse of their personal data. A further question is how IP law can provide them with the requisite protection of their private space, or whether other means of protecting personal data, such as through general contract rights, render IP protections redundant, or at least, less necessary. This paper maintains that lawmakers often fail to distinguish between general property and IP protection of personal data; that IP protection encompasses important attributes of both property and contract law; and that laws that implement IP protection in light of its sui generis attributes are more fitting means of protecting personal data than the alternatives. The paper demonstrates that one of the benefits of providing IP rights in personal data goes some way to strengthening data subjects’ control and protection over their personal data and strengthening data protection law more generally. It also argues for greater harmonization of IP law across jurisdictions to ensure that the protection of personal data becomes more coherent and internationally sustainable….(More)”.