Paper by Lin William Cong and Simon Mayer: “We model platform competition with endogenous data generation, collection, and sharing, thereby providing a unifying framework to evaluate data-related regulation and antitrust policies. Data are jointly produced from users’ economic activities and platforms’ investments in data infrastructure. Data improves service quality, causing a feedback loop that tends to concentrate market power. Dispersed users do not internalize the impact of their data contribution on (i) service quality for other users, (ii) market concentration, and (iii) platforms’ incentives to invest in data infrastructure, causing inefficient over- or under-collection of data. Data sharing proposals, user privacy protections, platform commitments, and markets for data cannot fully address these inefficiencies. We propose and analyze user union, which represents and coordinates users, as an effective solution for antitrust and consumer protection in the digital era…(More)”.
The Haves and the Have Nots: Civic Technologies and the Pathways to Government Responsiveness
Paper by Jonathan Mellon, Tiago C. Peixoto and Fredrik M. Sjoberg: “As civic life has moved online scholars have questioned whether this will exacerbate political inequalities due to differences in access to technology. However, this concern typically assumes that unequal participation inevitably leads to unequal outcomes: if online participants are unrepresentative of the population, then participation outcomes will benefit groups who participate and disadvantage those who do not. This paper combines the results from eight previous studies on civic technology platforms. It conducts new analysis to trace inequality throughout the participation chain, from (1) the existing digital divide, to (2) the profile of participants, to (3) the types of demands made through the platform, and, finally, to (4) policy outcomes.
The paper examines four civic technology models: online voting for participatory budgeting in Brazil, online local problem reporting in the United Kingdom, crowdsourced constitution drafting in Iceland, and online petitioning across 132 countries. In every case, the assumed links in the participation chain broke down because of the platform’s institutional features and the surrounding political process.
These results show that understanding how inequality is created requires examination of all stages of participation, as well as the resulting policy response. The assumption that inequalities in participation will always lead to the same inequalities in outcomes is not borne out in practice…(More)”.
Wicked Problems Might Inspire Greater Data Sharing
Paper by Susan Ariel Aaronson: “In 2021, the United Nations Development Program issued a plea in their 2021 Digital Economy Report. “ Global data-sharing can help address major global development challenges such as poverty, health, hunger and climate change. …Without global cooperation on data and information, research to develop the vaccine and actions to tackle the impact of the pandemic would have been a much more difficult task. Thus, in the same way as some data can be public goods, there is a case for some data to be considered as global public goods, which need to be addressed and provided through global governance.” (UNDP: 2021, 178). Global public goods are goods and services with benefits and costs that potentially extend to all countries, people, and generations. Global data sharing can also help solve what scholars call wicked problems—problems so complex that they require innovative, cost effective and global mitigating strategies. Wicked problems are problems that no one knows how to solve without
creating further problems. Hence, policymakers must find ways to encourage greater data sharing among entities that hold large troves of various types of data, while protecting that data from theft, manipulation etc. Many factors impede global data sharing for public good purposes; this analysis focuses on two.
First, policymakers generally don’t think about data as a global public good; they view data as a commercial asset that they should nurture and control. While they may understand that data can serve the public interest, they are more concerned with using data to serve their country’s economic interest. Secondly, many leaders of civil society and business see the data they have collected as proprietary data. So far many leaders of private entities with troves of data are not convinced that their organization will benefit from such sharing. At the same time, companies voluntarily share some data for social good purposes.
However, data cannot meet its public good purpose if data is not shared among societal entities. Moreover, if data as a sovereign asset, policymakers are unlikely to encourage data sharing across borders oriented towards addressing shared problems. Consequently, society will be less able to use data as both a commercial asset and as a resource to enhance human welfare. As the Bennet Institute and ODI have argued, “value comes from data being brought together, and that requires organizations to let others use the data they hold.” But that also means the entities that collected the data may not accrue all of the benefits from that data (Bennett Institute and ODI: 2020a: 4). In short, private entities are not sufficiently incentivized to share data in the global public good…(More)”.
Citizens’ Assemblies Are Upgrading Democracy: Fair Algorithms Are Part of the Program
Essay by Ariel Procaccia: “In 1983 the Eighth Amendment to the Irish constitution enshrined an abortion ban that had prevailed in the nation for more than a century. Public opinion on the issue shifted in the new millennium, however, and by 2016 it was clear that a real debate could no longer be avoided. But even relatively progressive politicians had long steered clear of the controversy rather than risk alienating voters. Who would be trustworthy and persuasive enough to break the deadlock?
The answer was a bunch of ordinary people. Seriously. The Irish Parliament convened a citizens’ assembly, whose 99 members were chosen at random. The selection process ensured that the group’s composition represented the Irish population along dimensions such as age, gender and geography. Over several months in 2016 and 2017, the assembly heard expert opinions and held extensive discussions regarding the legalization of abortion. Its recommendation, supported by a significant majority of members, was to allow abortions in all circumstances, subject to limits on the length of pregnancy. These conclusions set the stage for a 2018 referendum in which 66 percent of Ireland’s voters chose to repeal the Eighth Amendment, enabling abortion to be legalized. Such an outcome had been almost inconceivable a few years earlier.
The Irish citizens’ assembly is just one example of a widespread phenomenon. In recent years hundreds of such groups have convened around the world, their members randomly selected from the concerned population and given time and information to aid their deliberations. Citizens’ assemblies in France, Germany, the U.K., Washington State and elsewhere have charted pathways for reducing carbon emissions. An assembly in Canada sought methods of mitigating hate speech and fake news; another in Australia recommended ethical approaches to human genome editing; and yet another in Oregon identified policies for COVID pandemic recovery. Taken together, these assemblies have demonstrated an impressive capacity to uncover the will of the people and build consensus.
The effectiveness of citizens’ assemblies isn’t surprising. Have you ever noticed how politicians grow a spine the moment they decide not to run for reelection? Well, a citizens’ assembly is a bit like a legislature whose members make a pact barring them from seeking another term in office. The randomly selected members are not beholden to party machinations or outside interests; they are free to speak their mind and vote their conscience…(More)”.
Addressing ethical gaps in ‘Technology for Good’: Foregrounding care and capabilities
Paper by Alison B. Powell et al: “This paper identifies and addresses persistent gaps in the consideration of ethical practice in ‘technology for good’ development contexts. Its main contribution is to model an integrative approach using multiple ethical frameworks to analyse and understand the everyday nature of ethical practice, including in professional practice among ‘technology for good’ start-ups. The paper identifies inherent paradoxes in the ‘technology for good’ sector as well as ethical gaps related to (1) the sometimes-misplaced assignment of virtuousness to an individual; (2) difficulties in understanding social constraints on ethical action; and (3) the often unaccounted for mismatch between ethical intentions and outcomes in everyday practice, including in professional work associated with an ‘ethical turn’ in technology. These gaps persist even in contexts where ethics are foregrounded as matters of concern. To address the gaps, the paper suggests systemic, rather than individualized, considerations of care and capability applied to innovation settings, in combination with considerations of virtue and consequence. This paper advocates for addressing these challenges holistically in order to generate renewed capacity for change at a systemic level…(More)”.
Connected in Isolation: Digital Privilege in Unsettled Times
Book By Eszter Hargittai: “The vast majority of people in wealthy, highly connected, or digitally privileged societies may have crossed the digital divide, but being online does not mean that everyone is equally connected—and digital inequality reflects experience both online and off. In Connected in Isolation Eszter Hargittai looks at how this digital disparity played out during the unprecedented isolation imposed in the early days of the coronavirus pandemic.
During initial COVID-19 lockdowns the Internet, for many, became a lifeline, as everything from family get-togethers to doctor’s visits moved online. Using survey data collected in April and May of 2020 in the United States, Italy, and Switzerland, Hargittai explores how people from varied backgrounds and differing skill levels were able to take advantage of digital media to find the crucial information they needed—to help loved ones, procure necessities, understand rules and risks. Her study reveals the extent to which long-standing social and digital inequalities played a critical role in this move toward computer-mediated communication—and were often exacerbated in the process. However, Hargittai notes, context matters: her findings reveal that some populations traditionally disadvantaged with technology, such as older people, actually did better than others, in part because of the continuing importance of traditional media, television in particular.
The pandemic has permanently shifted how reliant we are upon online information, and the implications of Hargittai’s groundbreaking comparative research go far beyond the pandemic. Connected in Isolation informs and expands our understanding of digital media, including how they might mitigate or worsen existing social disparities; whom they empower or disenfranchise; and how we can identify and expand the skills people bring to them…(More)”.
Cross-border Data Flows: Taking Stock of Key Policies and Initiatives
OECD Report: “As data become an important resource for the global economy, it is important to strengthen trust to facilitate data sharing domestically and across borders. Significant momentum for related policies in the G7, and G20, has gone hand in hand with a wide range of – often complementary – national and international initiatives and the development of technological and organisational measures. Advancing a common understanding and dialogue among G7 countries and beyond is crucial to support coordinated and coherent progress in policy and regulatory approaches that leverage the full potential of data for global economic and social prosperity. This report takes stock of key policies and initiatives on cross-border data flows to inform and support G7 countries’ engagement on this policy agenda…(More)”.
Collective Intelligence in Action – Using Machine Data and Insights to Improve UNDP Sensemaking
UNDP Report: “At its heart, sensemaking is a strategic process designed to extract insights from current projects to generate actionable intelligence for UNDP Country Offices (CO) and other stakeholders. Also, the approach has the potential to increase coherency amongst portfolios of projects, surface common patterns, identify connections, gaps and future perspectives, and determine strategic actions to accelerate the impact of their work.
By adopting a data-driven approach and looking into structured and semi-structured data from https://open.undp.org/ as well as unstructured data from Open UNDP, project documents and annual progress reports of selected projects, this endeavor aims to extract useful insights for the CO colleagues to better understand where their portfolio is working and identify entry points for breaking silos between teams and spurring collaboration. It is designed to help improve Sensemaking, support better strategy and improve management decisions…(More)”.
Global healthcare fairness: We should be sharing more, not less, data
Paper by Kenneth P. Seastedt et al: “The availability of large, deidentified health datasets has enabled significant innovation in using machine learning (ML) to better understand patients and their diseases. However, questions remain regarding the true privacy of this data, patient control over their data, and how we regulate data sharing in a way that does not encumber progress or further potentiate biases for underrepresented populations. After reviewing the literature on potential reidentifications of patients in publicly available datasets, we argue that the cost—measured in terms of access to future medical innovations and clinical software—of slowing ML progress is too great to limit sharing data through large publicly available databases for concerns of imperfect data anonymization. This cost is especially great for developing countries where the barriers preventing inclusion in such databases will continue to rise, further excluding these populations and increasing existing biases that favor high-income countries. Preventing artificial intelligence’s progress towards precision medicine and sliding back to clinical practice dogma may pose a larger threat than concerns of potential patient reidentification within publicly available datasets. While the risk to patient privacy should be minimized, we believe this risk will never be zero, and society has to determine an acceptable risk threshold below which data sharing can occur—for the benefit of a global medical knowledge system….(More)”.
New Horizons in Digital Anthropology
Report by UNESCO and the LiiV Center: “Digitisation, social networks, artificial intelligence, and the metaverse are changing what it means to be human. Humans and technology are now in a dynamic and reciprocal relationship. However, while society has invested trillions in building and tracking digital platforms and personal data, we’ve invested a shockingly small amount in understanding the values, social dynamics, identities, and biases of digital communities.
We can’t address transformations in one without understanding the impacts on the other. Handling growing global challenges such as the spread of misinformation, the rise of social and political polarisation, the mental health crisis, the expansion of digital surveillance, and growing digital inequalities depends on our ability to gain deeper insights into the relationship between people and digital technologies, and to see and understand people, cultures and communities online. The world depends heavily on economics and data science when it comes to understanding digital impacts, but these sciences alone don’t tell the whole story. Economic models are built for scale but struggle with depth. Furthermore, experience shows us that over-reliance on one-dimensional approaches magnifies social biases and ethical blind spots.
Digital Anthropology focuses on this intersection between technology and humans, examining the quantitative and qualitative, using big data and thick data, the virtual and real. While innovation in digital anthropology has started, the field needs more investment and global awareness of its unique and untapped potential to humanise decision-making for leaders across the public and private sectors.
This publication, developed in partnership between UNESCO and the LiiV Center, maps the landscape of innovation in digital anthropology as an approach to ensure a better understanding of how human communities and societies interact and are shaped by technologies and, knowing this, how policies can be rendered more ethical and inclusive.
Briefly, the research found that innovation in digital anthropology is in a state of transition and is perceived differently across sectors and regions. In the span of just a couple of decades, innovation has come from doing anthropology digitally and doing the digital anthropologically, two movements that give life to space where creation happens within the blurry lines among disciplines, fuelled by increasingly fluid movement between academia and the private sector.
The innovation space in-between these trends seem to be where the most exciting and forward-thinking digital innovations are occurring, like novel blended algorithms or computational and techno-anthropology, and opens opportunities to educate a new breed of digitally and anthropologically skilled professionals…(More)”.