Paper by Jens Prufer and Inge Graef: “To prevent market tipping, which inhibits innovation, there is an urgent need to mandate sharing of user information in data-driven markets. Existing legal mechanisms to impose data sharing under EU competition law and data portability under the GDPR are not sufficient to tackle this problem. Mandated data sharing requires the design of a governance structure that combines elements of economically efficient centralization with legally necessary decentralization. We identify three feasible options. One is to centralize investigations and enforcement in a European Data Sharing Agency (EDSA), while decision-making power lies with National Competition Authorities in a Board of Supervisors. The second option is to set up a Data Sharing Cooperation Network coordinated through a European Data Sharing Board, with the National Competition Authority best placed to run the investigation adjudicating and enforcing the mandatory data-sharing decision across the EU. A third option is to mix both governance structures and to task national authorities to investigate and adjudicate and the EU-level EDSA with enforcement of data sharing….(More)”
A Worldwide Assessment of COVID-19 Pandemic-Policy Fatigue
Paper by Anna Petherick et al: “As the COVID-19 pandemic lingers, signs of “pandemic-policy fatigue” have raised worldwide concerns. But the phenomenon itself is yet to be thoroughly defined, documented, and delved into. Based on self-reported behaviours from samples of 238,797 respondents, representative of the populations of 14 countries, as well as global mobility and policy data, we systematically examine the prevalence and shape of people’s alleged gradual reduction in adherence to governments’ protective-behaviour policies against COVID-19. Our results show that from March through December 2020, pandemic-policy fatigue was empirically meaningful and geographically widespread. It emerged for high-cost and sensitising behaviours (physical distancing) but not for low-cost and habituating ones (mask wearing), and was less intense among retired people, people with chronic diseases, and in countries with high interpersonal trust. Particularly due to fatigue reversal patterns in high- and upper-middle-income countries, we observe an arch rather than a monotonic decline in global pandemic-policy fatigue….(More)”.
Give more data, awareness and control to individual citizens, and they will help COVID-19 containment
Paper by Mirco Nanni et al: “The rapid dynamics of COVID-19 calls for quick and effective tracking of virus transmission chains and early detection of outbreaks, especially in the “phase 2” of the pandemic, when lockdown and other restriction measures are progressively withdrawn, in order to avoid or minimize contagion resurgence. For this purpose, contact-tracing apps are being proposed for large scale adoption by many countries. A centralized approach, where data sensed by the app are all sent to a nation-wide server, raises concerns about citizens’ privacy and needlessly strong digital surveillance, thus alerting us to the need to minimize personal data collection and avoiding location tracking. We advocate the conceptual advantage of a decentralized approach, where both contact and location data are collected exclusively in individual citizens’ “personal data stores”, to be shared separately and selectively (e.g., with a backend system, but possibly also with other citizens), voluntarily, only when the citizen has tested positive for COVID-19, and with a privacy preserving level of granularity. This approach better protects the personal sphere of citizens and affords multiple benefits: it allows for detailed information gathering for infected people in a privacy-preserving fashion; and, in turn this enables both contact tracing, and, the early detection of outbreak hotspots on more finely-granulated geographic scale. The decentralized approach is also scalable to large populations, in that only the data of positive patients need be handled at a central level. Our recommendation is two-fold. First to extend existing decentralized architectures with a light touch, in order to manage the collection of location data locally on the device, and allow the user to share spatio-temporal aggregates—if and when they want and for specific aims—with health authorities, for instance. Second, we favour a longer-term pursuit of realizing a Personal Data Store vision, giving users the opportunity to contribute to collective good in the measure they want, enhancing self-awareness, and cultivating collective efforts for rebuilding society….(More)”.
Governance models for redistribution of data value
Essay by Maria Savona: “The growth of interest in personal data has been unprecedented. Issues of privacy violation, power abuse, practices of electoral behaviour manipulation unveiled in the Cambridge Analytica scandal, and a sense of imminent impingement of our democracies are at the forefront of policy debates. Yet, these concerns seem to overlook the issue of concentration of equity value (stemming from data value, which I use interchangeably here) that underpins the current structure of big tech business models. Whilst these quasi-monopolies own the digital infrastructure, they do not own the personal data that provide the raw material for data analytics.
The European Commission has been at the forefront of global action to promote convergence of the governance of data (privacy), including, but not limited to, the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) (European Commission 2016), enforced in May 2018. Attempts to enforce similar regulations are emerging around the world, including the California Consumer Privacy Act, which came into effect on 1 January 2020. Notwithstanding greater awareness among citizens around the use of their data, companies find that complying with GDPR is, at best, a useless nuisance.
Data have been seen as ‘innovation investment’ since the beginning of the 1990s. The first edition of the Oslo Manual, the OECD’s international guidelines for collecting and using data on innovation in firms, dates back to 19921 and included the collection of databases on employee best practices as innovation investments. Data are also measured as an ‘intangible asset’ (Corrado et al. 2009 was one of the pioneering studies). What has changed over the last decade? The scale of data generation today is such that its management and control might have already gone well beyond the capacity of the very tech giants we are all feeding. Concerns around data governance and data privacy might be too little and too late.
In this column, I argue that economists have failed twice: first, to predict the massive concentration of data value in the hands of large platforms; and second, to account for the complexity of the political economy aspects of data accumulation. Based on a pair of recent papers (Savona 2019a, 2019b), I systematise recent research and propose a novel data rights approach to redistribute data value whilst not undermining the range of ethical, legal, and governance challenges that this poses….(More)”.
Digital platforms for development: Foundations and research agenda
Paper by Carla Bonina, Kari Koskinen, Ben Eaton, and Annabelle Gawer: “Digital platforms hold a central position in today’s world economy and are said to offer a great potential for the economies and societies in the global South. Yet, to date, the scholarly literature on digital platforms has largely concentrated on business while their developmental implications remain understudied. In part, this is because digital platforms are a challenging research object due to their lack of conceptual definition, their spread across different regions and industries, and their intertwined nature with institutions, actors and digital technologies. The purpose of this article is to contribute to the ongoing debate in information systems and ICT4D research to understand what digital platforms mean for development. To do so, we first define what digital platforms are and differentiate between transaction and innovation platforms, and explain their key characteristics in terms of purpose, research foundations, material properties and business models. We add the socio‐technical context digital platforms operate and the linkages to developmental outcomes. We then conduct an extensive review to explore what current areas, developmental goals, tensions and issues emerge in the literature on platforms and development and identify relevant gaps in our knowledge. We later elaborate on six research questions to advance the studies on digital platforms for development: on indigenous innovation, digital platforms and institutions, on exacerbation of inequalities, on alternative forms of value, on the dark side of platforms and on the applicability of the platform typology for development….(More)”.
Guide to Good Practice on the Use of New Technologies for the Administration of Justice
Report by México Evalúa: “This document offers a brief review of decisions, initiatives and implementation processes of various policies designed by the judiciary to incorporate the use of new technologies in their work. We are interested in highlighting the role that these tools can play not only in diversifying the means through which the public accesses the service of imparting justice, but also in facilitating and improving the organization of work in the courts and tribunals. We also analyzed the way in which the application of certain technological developments in justiciary tasks, in particular tele or videoconferences, has redefined the traditional structure of the judicial proceeding by allowing remote, simultaneous and collective interaction of the subjects involved. We also reflect on the dilemmas, viability and not always intended effects of the use of new technologies in the administration of justice.
(…)
We chose to analyze them from the focus of the procedural moment in which they intervene, that is, from the user’s perspective, because although technological solutions may have a wide range of objectives, it seems to us that, behind any technological development, the goal of facilitating, expanding and improving citizens’ access to justice should always prevail. We report several experiences aimed at reorganizing the processing of legal proceedings in the various phases that structure them, from the activation stage procedural (filing of lawsuit or judicialization of a criminal investigation) to the execution of court rulings (judgments, arbitral awards), passing through the processing of cases (hearings, proceedings). We would like to emphasize that access to justice includes everything from the processing of cases to the timely enforcement of court rulings. That vision can be summarized with the following figure:…(More)”.
Scholarly publishing needs regulation
Essay by Jean-Claude Burgelman: “The world of scientific communication has changed significantly over the past 12 months. Understandably, the amazing mobilisation of research and scholarly publishing in an effort to mitigate the effects of Covid-19 and find a vaccine has overshadowed everything else. But two other less-noticed events could also have profound implications for the industry and the researchers who rely on it.
On 10 January 2020, Taylor and Francis announced its acquisition of one of the most innovative small open-access publishers, F1000 Research. A year later, on 5 January 2021, another of the big commercial scholarly publishers, Wiley, paid nearly $300 million for Hindawi, a significant open-access publisher in London.
These acquisitions come alongside rapid change in publishers’ functions and business models. Scientific publishing is no longer only about publishing articles. It’s a knowledge industry—and it’s increasingly clear it needs to be regulated like one.
The two giant incumbents, Springer Nature and Elsevier, are already a long way down the road to open access, and have built up impressive in-house capacity. But Wiley, and Taylor and Francis, had not. That’s why they decided to buy young open-access publishers. Buying up a smaller, innovative competitor is a well-established way for an incumbent in any industry to expand its reach, gain the ability to do new things and reinvent its business model—it’s why Facebook bought WhatsApp and Instagram, for example.
New regulatory approach
To understand why this dynamic demands a new regulatory approach in scientific publishing, we need to set such acquisitions alongside a broader perspective of the business’s transformation into a knowledge industry.
Monopolies, cartels and oligopolies in any industry are a cause for concern. By reducing competition, they stifle innovation and push up prices. But for science, the implications of such a course are particularly worrying.
Science is a common good. Its products—and especially its spillovers, the insights and applications that cannot be monopolised—are vital to our knowledge societies. This means that having four companies control the worldwide production of car tyres, as they do, has very different implications to an oligopoly in the distribution of scientific outputs. The latter situation would give the incumbents a tight grip on the supply of knowledge.
Scientific publishing is not yet a monopoly, but Europe at least is witnessing the emergence of an oligopoly, in the shape of Elsevier, Springer Nature, Wiley, and Taylor and Francis. The past year’s acquisitions have left only two significant independent players in open-access publishing—Frontiers and MDPI, both based in Switzerland….(More)”.
Consensus or chaos? Pandemic response hinges on trust, experts say
Article by Catherine Cheney: “Trust is a key reason for the wide variance in how countries have fared during the COVID-19 pandemic, determining why some have succeeded in containing the virus while others have failed, according to new research on responses across 23 countries.
The work, supported by Schmidt Futures and the National Science Foundation and carried out by teams at Columbia, Harvard, and Cornell Universities, studied national responses to COVID-19 based on public health, economy, and politics.
It organizes countries into three categories: control, consensus, and chaos. The researchers call the United States the leading example of high levels of polarization, decentralized decision-making, and distrust in expertise leading to policy chaos. The category also includes Brazil, India, Italy, and the United Kingdom.
To prepare for future pandemics, countries must build trust in public health, government institutions, and expert advice, according to a range of speakers at last week’s Futures Forum on Preparedness. Schmidt Futures, which co-hosted the event, announced that it is launching a new challenge to source the best ideas from around the world for developing trust in public health interventions. This request for proposals is likely just the beginning as funders explore how to learn from the pandemic and build trust moving forward….(More)”.
From Journalistic Ethics To Fact-Checking Practices: Defining The Standards Of Content Governance In The Fight Against Disinformation
Paper by Paolo Cavaliere: “This article claims that the practices undertaken by digital platforms to counter disinformation, under the EU Action Plan against Disinformation and the Code of Practice, mark a shift in the governance of news media content. While professional journalism standards have been used for long, both within and outside the industry, to assess the accuracy of news content and adjudicate on media conduct, the platforms are now resolving to different fact-checking routines to moderate and curate their content.
The article will demonstrate how fact-checking organisations have different working methods than news operators and ultimately understand and assess ‘accuracy’ in different ways. As a result, this new and enhanced role for platforms and fact-checkers as curators of content impacts on how content is distributed to the audience and, thus, on media freedom. Depending on how the fact-checking standards and working routines will consolidate in the near future, however, this trend offers an actual opportunity to improve the quality of news and the right to receive information…(More)”.
The Hidden Cost of Using Amazon Mechanical Turk for Research
Paper by Antonios Saravanos: “This work shares unexpected findings obtained from the use of the Amazon Mechanical Turk platform as a source of participants for the study of technology adoption. Expressly, of the 564 participants from the United States, 126 (22.34%) failed at least one of three forms of attention check (logic, honesty, and time). We also examined whether characteristics such as gender, age, education, and income affected participant attention. Amongst all characteristics assessed, only prior experience with the technology being studied was found to be related to attentiveness. We conclude this work by reaffirming the need for multiple forms of attention checks to gauge participant attention. Furthermore, we propose that researchers adjust their budgets accordingly to account for the possibility of having to discard responses from participants determined not to be displaying adequate attention….(More)”.