Addressing Digital Harms in Conflict

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Report by Henriette Litta and Peter Bihr: “…takes stock and looks to the future: What does openness mean in the digital age? Is the concept still up to date? The study traces the development of Openness and analyses current challenges. It is based on interviews with experts and extensive literature research. The key insights at a glance are:

  • Give Openness a purpose.
  • Protect Openness by adding guard rails.
  • Open innovation and infrastructure need investments.
  • Openness is not neutral.
  • Market domination needs to be curtailed…(More)”.

The Technopolar Paradox

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Ian Bremmer: “In February 2022, as Russian forces advanced on Kyiv, Ukraine’s government faced a critical vulnerability: with its Internet and communication networks under attack, its troops and leaders would soon be in the dark. Elon Musk—the de facto head of Tesla, SpaceX, X (formerly Twitter), xAI, the Boring Company, and Neuralink—stepped in. Within days, SpaceX had deployed thousands of Starlink terminals to Ukraine and activated satellite Internet service at no cost. Having kept the country online, Musk was hailed as a hero.

But the centibillionaire’s personal intervention—and Kyiv’s reliance on it—came with risks. Months later, Ukraine asked SpaceX to extend Starlink’s coverage to Russian-occupied Crimea, to enable a submarine drone strike that Kyiv wanted to carry out against Russian naval assets. Musk refused—worried, he said, that this would cause a major escalation in the war. Even the Pentagon’s entreaties on behalf of Ukraine failed to convince him. An unelected, unaccountable private citizen had unilaterally thwarted a military operation in an active war zone while exposing the fact that governments had remarkably little control over crucial decisions affecting their citizens and national security.

This was “technopolarity” in action: a technology leader not only driving stock market returns but also controlling aspects of civil society, politics, and international affairs that have been traditionally the exclusive preserve of nation-states. Over the past decade, the rise of such individuals and the firms they control has transformed the global order, which had been defined by states since the Peace of Westphalia enshrined them as the building blocks of geopolitics nearly 400 years ago. For most of this time, the structure of that order could be described as unipolar, bipolar, or multipolar, depending on how power was distributed among countries. The world, however, has since entered a “technopolar moment,” a term I used in Foreign Affairs in 2021 to describe an emerging order in which “a handful of large technology companies rival [states] for geopolitical influence.” Major tech firms have become powerful geopolitical actors, exercising a form of sovereignty over digital space and, increasingly, the physical world that potentially rivals that of states…(More)”.

How we think about protecting data

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Peter Dizikes: “How should personal data be protected? What are the best uses of it? In our networked world, questions about data privacy are ubiquitous and matter for companies, policymakers, and the public.

A new study by MIT researchers adds depth to the subject by suggesting that people’s views about privacy are not firmly fixed and can shift significantly, based on different circumstances and different uses of data.

“There is no absolute value in privacy,” says Fabio Duarte, principal research scientist in MIT’s Senseable City Lab and co-author of a new paper outlining the results. “Depending on the application, people might feel use of their data is more or less invasive.”

The study is based on an experiment the researchers conducted in multiple countries using a newly developed game that elicits public valuations of data privacy relating to different topics and domains of life.

“We show that values attributed to data are combinatorial, situational, transactional, and contextual,” the researchers write.

The open-access paper, “Data Slots: tradeoffs between privacy concerns and benefits of data-driven solutions,” is published today in Nature: Humanities and Social Sciences Communications. The authors are Martina Mazzarello, a postdoc in the Senseable City Lab; Duarte; Simone Mora, a research scientist at Senseable City Lab; Cate Heine PhD ’24 of University College London; and Carlo Ratti, director of the Senseable City Lab.

The study is based around a card game with poker-type chips the researchers created to study the issue, called Data Slots. In it, players hold hands of cards with 12 types of data — such as a personal profile, health data, vehicle location information, and more — that relate to three types of domains where data are collected: home life, work, and public spaces. After exchanging cards, the players generate ideas for data uses, then assess and invest in some of those concepts. The game has been played in-person in 18 different countries, with people from another 74 countries playing it online; over 2,000 individual player-rounds were included in the study…(More)”.

The Meanings of Voting for Citizens: A Scientific Challenge, a Portrait, and Implications

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Book by Carolina Plescia: “On election day, citizens typically place a mark beside a party or candidate on a ballot paper. The right to cast this mark has been a historic conquest and today, voting is among the most frequent political acts citizens perform. But what does that mark mean to them? This book explores the diverse conceptualizations of voting among citizens in 13 countries across Europe, Africa, the Americas, and Oceania. This book presents empirical evidence based on nearly a million words about voting from over 25,000 people through an open-ended survey and both qualitative and quantitative methods. The book’s innovative approach includes conceptual, theoretical, and empirical advancements and provides a comprehensive understanding of what voting means to citizens and how these meanings influence political engagement. This book challenges assumptions about universal views on democracy and reveals how meanings of voting vary among individuals and across both liberal democracies and electoral autocracies. The book also examines the implications of these meanings for political behaviour and election reforms. The Meanings of Voting for Citizens is a critical reference for scholars of public opinion, behaviour, and democratization, as well as a valuable resource for undergraduate and graduate courses in comparative political behaviour, empirical methods, and survey research. Practitioners working on election reforms will find it particularly relevant via its insights into how citizens’ meanings of voting impact the effectiveness of electoral reforms…(More)”.

The European Data Cooperative (EDC) 

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Invest Europe: “The European Data Cooperative (EDC) is a joint initiative developed by Invest Europe and its national association partners to collect Europe-wide industry data on activity (fundraising, investments, & divestments), economic impact (Employment, Turnover, EBITDA, & CAPEX) and ESG.

The EDC platform is jointly owned and operated by the private equity and venture capital associations of Europe. It serves as a single data entry point for their members and other contributors across the continent. The EDC brings together:

  • 4,000 firms
  • 10,900 funds
  • 86,700 portfolio companies
  • 330,900 transactions

Using one platform with a standardised methodology allows us to have consistent, robust pan-European statistics that are comparable across the region…(More)”

Governing in the Age of AI: Reimagining Local Government

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Report by the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change: “…The limits of the existing operating model have been reached. Starved of resources by cuts inflicted by previous governments over the past 15 years, many councils are on the verge of bankruptcy even though local taxes are at their highest level. Residents wait too long for care, too long for planning applications and too long for benefits; many people never receive what they are entitled to. Public satisfaction with local services is sliding.

Today, however, there are new tools – enabled by artificial intelligence – that would allow councils to tackle these challenges. The day-to-day tasks of local government, whether related to the delivery of public services or planning for the local area, can all be performed faster, better and cheaper with the use of AI – a true transformation not unlike the one seen a century ago.

These tools would allow councils to overturn an operating model that is bureaucratic, labour-intensive and unresponsive to need. AI could release staff from repetitive tasks and relieve an overburdened and demotivated workforce. It could help citizens navigate the labyrinth of institutions, webpages and forms with greater ease and convenience. It could support councils to make better long-term decisions to drive economic growth, without which the resource pressure will only continue to build…(More)”.

Co-Designing AI Systems with Value-Sensitive Citizen Science

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Sachit Mahajan and Dirk Helbing: “As artificial intelligence (AI) systems increasingly shape everyday life, integrating diverse community values into their development becomes both an ethical imperative and a practical necessity. This paper introduces Value Sensitive Citizen Science (VSCS), a systematic framework combining Value Sensitive Design (VSD) principles with citizen science methods to foster meaningful public participation in AI. Addressing critical gaps in existing approaches, VSCS integrates culturally grounded participatory methods and structured cognitive scaffolding through the Participatory Value-Cognition Taxonomy (PVCT). Through iterative value-sensitive participation cycles guided by an extended scenario logic (What-if, If-then, Then-what, What-now), community members act as genuine coresearchers-identifying, translating, and operationalizing local values into concrete technical requirements. The framework also institutionalizes governance structures for ongoing oversight, adaptability, and accountability across the AI lifecycle. By explicitly bridging participatory design with algorithmic accountability, VSCS ensures that AI systems reflect evolving community priorities rather than reinforcing top-down or monocultural perspectives. Critical discussions highlight VSCS’s practical implications, addressing challenges such as power dynamics, scalability, and epistemic justice. The paper concludes by outlining actionable strategies for policymakers and practitioners, alongside future research directions aimed at advancing participatory, value-driven AI development across diverse technical and sociocultural contexts…(More)”.


Technical Tiers: A New Classification Framework for Global AI Workforce Analysis

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Report by Siddhi Pal, Catherine Schneider and Ruggero Marino Lazzaroni: “… introduces a novel three-tiered classification system for global AI talent that addresses significant methodological limitations in existing workforce analyses, by distinguishing between different skill categories within the existing AI talent pool. By distinguishing between non-technical roles (Category 0), technical software development (Category 1), and advanced deep learning specialization (Category 2), our framework enables precise examination of AI workforce dynamics at a pivotal moment in global AI policy.

Through our analysis of a sample of 1.6 million individuals in the AI talent pool across 31 countries, we’ve uncovered clear patterns in technical talent distribution that significantly impact Europe’s AI ambitions. Asian nations hold an advantage in specialized AI expertise, with South Korea (27%), Israel (23%), and Japan (20%) maintaining the highest proportions of Category 2 talent. Within Europe, Poland and Germany stand out as leaders in specialized AI talent. This may be connected to their initiatives to attract tech companies and investments in elite research institutions, though further research is needed to confirm these relationships.

Our data also reveals a shifting landscape of global talent flows. Research shows that countries employing points-based immigration systems attract 1.5 times more high-skilled migrants than those using demand-led approaches. This finding takes on new significance in light of recent geopolitical developments affecting scientific research globally. As restrictive policies and funding cuts create uncertainty for researchers in the United States, one of the big destinations for European AI talent, the way nations position their regulatory environments, scientific freedoms, and research infrastructure will increasingly determine their ability to attract and retain specialized AI talent.

The gender analysis in our study illuminates another dimension of competitive advantage. Contrary to the overall AI talent pool, EU countries lead in female representation in highly technical roles (Category 2), occupying seven of the top ten global rankings. Finland, Czechia, and Italy have the highest proportion of female representation in Category 2 roles globally (39%, 31%, and 28%, respectively). This gender diversity represents not merely a social achievement but a potential strategic asset in AI innovation, particularly as global coalitions increasingly emphasize the importance of diverse perspectives in AI development…(More)”

Mini-Publics and Party Ideology: Who Commissioned the Deliberative Wave in Europe?

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Rodrigo Ramis-Moyano et al: “The increasing implementation of deliberative mini-publics (DMPs) such as Citizens’ Assemblies and Citizens’ Juries led the OECD to identify a ‘deliberative wave’. The burgeoning scholarship on DMPs has increased understanding of how they operate and their impact, but less attention has been paid to the drivers behind this diffusion. Existing research on democratic innovations has underlined the role of the governing party’s ideology as a relevant variable in the study of the adoption of other procedures such as participatory budgeting, placing left-wing parties as a prominent actor in this process. Unlike this previous literature, we have little understanding of whether mini-publics appeal equally across the ideological spectrum. This paper draws on the large-N OECD database to analyse the impact of governing party affiliation on the commissioning of DMPs in Europe across the last four decades. Our analysis finds the ideological pattern of adoption is less clear cut compared to other democratic innovations such as participatory budgeting. But stronger ideological differentiation emerges when we pay close attention to the design features of DMPs implemented…(More)”.

Hundreds of scholars say U.S. is swiftly heading toward authoritarianism

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Frank Langfitt: “A survey of more than 500 political scientists finds that the vast majority think the United States is moving swiftly from liberal democracy toward some form of authoritarianism.

In the benchmark survey, known as Bright Line Watch, U.S.-based professors rate the performance of American democracy on a scale from zero (complete dictatorship) to 100 (perfect democracy). After President Trump’s election in November, scholars gave American democracy a rating of 67. Several weeks into Trump’s second term, that figure plummeted to 55.

“That’s a precipitous drop,” says John Carey, a professor of government at Dartmouth and co-director of Bright Line Watch. “There’s certainly consensus: We’re moving in the wrong direction.”…Not all political scientists view Trump with alarm, but many like Carey who focus on democracy and authoritarianism are deeply troubled by Trump’s attempts to expand executive power over his first several months in office.

“We’ve slid into some form of authoritarianism,” says Steven Levitsky, a professor of government at Harvard, and co-author of How Democracies Die. “It is relatively mild compared to some others. It is certainly reversible, but we are no longer living in a liberal democracy.”…Kim Lane Scheppele, a Princeton sociologist who has spent years tracking Hungary, is also deeply concerned: “We are on a very fast slide into what’s called competitive authoritarianism.”

When these scholars use the term “authoritarianism,” they aren’t talking about a system like China’s, a one-party state with no meaningful elections. Instead, they are referring to something called “competitive authoritarianism,” the kind scholars say they see in countries such as Hungary and Turkey.

In a competitive authoritarian system, a leader comes to power democratically and then erodes the system of checks and balances. Typically, the executive fills the civil service and key appointments — including the prosecutor’s office and judiciary — with loyalists. He or she then attacks the media, universities and nongovernmental organizations to blunt public criticism and tilt the electoral playing field in the ruling party’s favor…(More)”.