Paper by Felix J. Hoffmann, Fabian Braesemann & Timm Teubner: “Sustainability in tourism is a topic of global relevance, finding multiple mentions in the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. The complex task of balancing tourism’s economic, environmental, and social effects requires detailed and up-to-date data. This paper investigates whether online platform data can be employed as an alternative data source in sustainable tourism statistics. Using a web-scraped dataset from a large online tourism platform, a sustainability label for accommodations can be predicted reasonably well with machine learning techniques. The algorithmic prediction of accommodations’ sustainability using online data can provide a cost-effective and accurate measure that allows to track developments of tourism sustainability across the globe with high spatial and temporal granularity…(More)”.
Energy Data Sharing: The Case of EV Smart Charging
Paper by Sean Ennis and Giuseppe Colangelo: “The green and digital transitions are concomitantly underway. In its upcoming Action Plan on Digitalisation of Energy, the European Commission aims to develop a digital-driven “European energy data space” to allow for data sharing and system integration between the energy sector and other sectors, e.g. mobility.
CERRE has begun working at the intersection of digital and energy with a new, cross-sector research initiative aimed at identifying the business case and governance principles for the development of a European energy data space, using the concrete example of smart electric vehicle charging points, which will play an important role in increasing the flexibility and efficiency of the energy sector.
Key research questions to be addressed as part of the project are:
- What property rights are included within the smart charging data?
- What is the business case for industry players and customers to share their data?
- What should be the overarching principles governing a European energy data space?
- What government interventions or data standards are required to make specific use cases successful for achieving green transition goals?..(More)”.
Confronting Reality in Cyberspace: Foreign Policy for a Fragmented Internet
Report by Council on Foreign Affairs Task Force: “…The Task Force proposes three pillars to a foreign policy that should guide Washington’s adaptation to today’s more complex, variegated, and dangerous cyber realm.
First, Washington should confront reality and consolidate a coalition of allies and friends around a vision of the internet that preserves—to the greatest degree possible—a trusted, protected international communication platform.
Second, the United States should balance more targeted diplomatic and economic pressure on adversaries, as well as more disruptive cyber operations, with clear statements about self-imposed restraint on specific types of targets agreed to among U.S. allies.
Third, the United States needs to put its own proverbial house in order. That requirement calls for Washington to link more cohesively its policy for digital competition with the broader enterprise of national security strategy.
The major recommendations of the Task Force are as follows:
- Build a digital trade agreement among trusted partners.
- Agree to and adopt a shared policy on digital privacy that is interoperable with Europe’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).
- Resolve outstanding issues on U.S.-European Union (EU) data transfers.
- Create an international cybercrime center.
- Launch a focused program for cyber aid and infrastructure development.
- Work jointly across partners to retain technology superiority.
- Declare norms against destructive attacks on election and financial systems.
- Negotiate with adversaries to establish limits on cyber operations directed at nuclear command, control, and communications (NC3) systems.
- Develop coalition-wide practices for the Vulnerabilities Equities Process (VEP).
- Adopt greater transparency about defend forward actions.
- Hold states accountable for malicious activity emanating from their territories.
- Make digital competition a pillar of the national security strategy.
- Clean up U.S. cyberspace by offering incentives for internet service providers (ISPs) and cloud providers to reduce malicious activity within their infrastructure.
- Address the domestic intelligence gap.
- Promote the exchange of and collaboration among talent from trusted partners.
- Develop the expertise for cyber foreign policy.
A free, global, and open internet was a worthy aspiration that helped guide U.S. policymakers for the internet’s first thirty years. The internet as it exists today, however, demands a reconsideration of U.S. cyber and foreign policies to confront these new realities. The Task Force believes that U.S. goals moving forward will be more limited and thus more attainable, but the United States needs to act quickly to design strategies and tactics that can ameliorate an urgent threat…(More)”.
Identifying and addressing data asymmetries so as to enable (better) science
Paper by Stefaan Verhulst and Andrew Young: “As a society, we need to become more sophisticated in assessing and addressing data asymmetries—and their resulting political and economic power inequalities—particularly in the realm of open science, research, and development. This article seeks to start filling the analytical gap regarding data asymmetries globally, with a specific focus on the asymmetrical availability of privately-held data for open science, and a look at current efforts to address these data asymmetries. It provides a taxonomy of asymmetries, as well as both their societal and institutional impacts. Moreover, this contribution outlines a set of solutions that could provide a toolbox for open science practitioners and data demand-side actors that stand to benefit from increased access to data. The concept of data liquidity (and portability) is explored at length in connection with efforts to generate an ecosystem of responsible data exchanges. We also examine how data holders and demand-side actors are experimenting with new and emerging operational models and governance frameworks for purpose-driven, cross-sector data collaboratives that connect previously siloed datasets. Key solutions discussed include professionalizing and re-imagining data steward roles and functions (i.e., individuals or groups who are tasked with managing data and their ethical and responsible reuse within organizations). We present these solutions through case studies on notable efforts to address science data asymmetries. We examine these cases using a repurposable analytical framework that could inform future research. We conclude with recommended actions that could support the creation of an evidence base on work to address data asymmetries and unlock the public value of greater science data liquidity and responsible reuse…(More)”.
Artificial Intelligence and Democracy
Open Access Book by Jérôme Duberry on “Risks and Promises of AI-Mediated Citizen–Government Relations….What role does artificial intelligence (AI) play in the citizen–government rela-tions? Who is using this technology and for what purpose? How does the use of AI influence power relations in policy-making, and the trust of citizens in democratic institutions? These questions led to the writing of this book. While the early developments of e-democracy and e-participation can be traced back to the end of the 20th century, the growing adoption of smartphones and mobile applications by citizens, and the increased capacity of public adminis-trations to analyze big data, have enabled the emergence of new approaches. Online voting, online opinion polls, online town hall meetings, and online dis-cussion lists of the 1990s and early 2000s have evolved into new generations of policy-making tactics and tools, enabled by the most recent developments in information and communication technologies (ICTs) (Janssen & Helbig, 2018). Online platforms, advanced simulation websites, and serious gaming tools are progressively used on a larger scale to engage citizens, collect their opinions, and involve them in policy processes…(More)”.
Meta launches Sphere, an AI knowledge tool based on open web content, used initially to verify citations on Wikipedia
Article by Ingrid Lunden: “Facebook may be infamous for helping to usher in the era of “fake news”, but it’s also tried to find a place for itself in the follow-up: the never-ending battle to combat it. In the latest development on that front, Facebook parent Meta today announced a new tool called Sphere, AI built around the concept of tapping the vast repository of information on the open web to provide a knowledge base for AI and other systems to work. Sphere’s first application, Meta says, is Wikipedia, where it’s being used in a production phase (not live entries) to automatically scan entries and identify when citations in its entries are strongly or weakly supported.
The research team has open sourced Sphere — which is currently based on 134 million public web pages. Here is how it works in action…(More)”.
Datafication of Public Opinion and the Public Sphere
Book by Slavko Splichal: “The book, anchored in stimulating debates about the Enlightenment ideas of publicness, analyses historical changes in the core phenomena of publicness: possibilities, conditions and obstacles to developing a public sphere in which the public reflexively creates, articulates and expresses public opinion. It is focused on the historical transformation from “public use of reason” through the identification of “public opinion” in opinion polls to contemporary opinion mining, in which the Enlightenment idea of public expression of opinion has been displaced by the technology of extracting opinions. It heralds a new critical impetus in theory and research of publicness at a time when critical social thought is sharply criticising and even abandoning the notion of the public sphere, much like the notion of public opinion decades ago, due to its predominantly administrative use…(More)”.
Modularity for International Internet Governance
Essay by Chris Riley and Susan Ness: “The modern-day “global” internet faces a dubious future. On the battle lines of internet freedom, Russia’s increasing authoritarian control aspires to China’s great firewall levels, while the annual Freedom on the Net report for 2021 found a global decline in internet freedom for the 11th straight year. The same report also noted that at least 48 separate countries explored increasing governmental oversight over the tech sector.
In the midst of increasing global division lies, perhaps, a core of unity: a worldwide interest among democracies in changing the status quo of internet governance to improve the baseline of responsibility and accountability for digital platforms. And for this problem, at least, there is hope—perhaps distant hope—for the possibility of increasing alignment. We propose that modularity can be a useful and tractable approach to improve digital platform accountability through harmonized policies and practices among nations embracing the rule of law.
Modularity is a form of multistakeholder, co-regulatory governance, in which modules—discrete mechanisms, protocols, and codes—are developed through processes that include a range of perspectives. Modularity produces, to the extent possible, internationally aligned corporate technical and business practices through shared mechanisms that achieve compliance with multiple legal jurisdictions, without the need for a new international treaty.
Think of modularity as a five-step process. First, problem identification: One or more governments—working together or separately—identify an open challenge. For example, vetting researchers as part of a digital platform data access mandate. Second, module formation: A group of experts (which may or may not include government representatives) collaborates to develop a module that includes both standards and processes for addressing the problem, and is designed for use across multiple jurisdictions. Third, validation: Individual governments evaluate and approve the module by indicating that its output—such as a decision that individual research projects should be cleared to receive platform data—can be used to satisfy requirement(s) set out in their respective underlying legislation. Fourth, execution: Systems created through the module apply the module’s protocols to individual circumstances. (In this instance, vetting research projects applying for clearance.) Finally, enforcement and analysis: Each government uses its national policies and procedures to ensure digital platform compliance, and periodically assesses the module process to ensure it remains fit-for-purpose.
Modularity offers many advantages for digital platform governance. It helps norms and expectations evolve along with rapidly evolving technology, while maintaining the force of law, without the obstacles and delays inherent in separately amending each of the underlying laws. And it helps close substantive gaps present in many platform legislative frameworks being developed today. But making it a reality will require governments to be willing to embrace an aligned path forward through disparate legal and political systems…(More)”
EU digital diplomacy: Council agrees a more concerted European approach to the challenges posed by new digital technologies
Press Release: “The Council today approved conclusions on EU digital diplomacy.
Digital technologies have brought new opportunities and risks into the lives of EU citizens and people around the globe. They have also become key competitive parameters that can shift the geopolitical balance of power. The EU has a growing web of digital alliances and partnerships around the world. It is increasingly investing in digital infrastructure and, under the Global Gateway strategy, in supporting partners in defining their regulatory approach to technology based on a human-centric approach.
Against this background, the Council invites all relevant parties to ensure that digital diplomacy becomes a core component and an integral part of the EU external action, and is closely coordinated with other EU external policies on cyber and countering hybrid threats, including foreign information manipulation and interference.
In this context, to enhance the EU’s Digital Diplomacy in and with the US, the EU will soon open a dedicated office in San Francisco, a global centre for digital technology and innovation.
The conclusions stress the importance of capacity building and the strategic promotion of technological solutions and regulatory frameworks that respect democratic values and human rights.
For this reason, the EU will actively promote universal human rights and fundamental freedoms, the rule of law and democratic principles in the digital space and advance a human-centric approach to digital technologies in relevant multilateral fora and other platforms, promoting partnerships and coalitions with like-minded countries and strengthening cooperation in and with the UN system, the G7, the OSCE, the OECD, the WTO, NATO, the Council of Europe and other multilateral fora, striving to match the progress achieved with the EU’s Green Diplomacy and Cyber Diplomacy…(More)”
Social Noise: What Is It, and Why Should We Care?
Article by Tara Zimmerman: “As social media, online relationships, and perceived social expectations on platforms such as Facebook play a greater role in people’s lives, a new phenomenon has emerged: social noise. Social noise is the influence of personal and relational factors on information received, which can confuse, distort, or even change the intended message. Influenced by social noise, people are likely to moderate their response to information based on cues regarding what behavior is acceptable or desirable within their social network. This may be done consciously or unconsciously as individuals strive to present themselves in ways that increase their social capital. For example, this might be seen as liking or sharing information posted by a friend or family member as a show of support despite having no strong feelings toward the information itself. Similarly, someone might refrain from liking, sharing, or commenting on information they strongly agree with because they believe others in their social network would disapprove.
This study reveals that social media users’ awareness of observation by others does impact their information behavior. Efforts to craft a personal reputation, build or maintain relationships, pursue important commitments, and manage conflict all influence the observable information behavior of
social media users. As a result, observable social media information behavior may not be an accurate reflection of an individual’s true thoughts and beliefs. This is particularly interesting in light of the role social media plays in the spread of mis- and disinformation…(More)”.