Crowdsourced Politics

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Book by Ariadne Vromen, Darren Halpin, Michael Vaughan: “This book focuses on online petitioning and crowdfunding platforms to demonstrate the everyday impact that digital communications have had on contemporary citizen participation. It argues that crowdsourced participation has become normalised and institutionalised into the repertoires of citizens and their organisations. 

To illustrate their arguments the authors use an original survey on acts of political engagement, undertaken with Australian citizens. Through detailed interviews and online analysis they show how advocacy organisations now use online petitions for strategic interventions and mobilisation. They also analyse the policy issues that mobilise citizens on crowdsourcing platforms, including a unique dataset of 17,000 petitions from the popular non-government platform, Change.org. Contrasting mass public concerns with the policy agenda of the government of the day shows there is a disjuncture and lack of responsiveness to crowdsourced citizen expression. Ultimately the book explores the long-term implications of citizen-led change for democracy. ..(More)”.

Building Trust to Reinforce Democracy

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Main Findings from the 2021 OECD Survey on Drivers of Trust in Public Institutions: “What drives trust in government? This report presents the main findings of the first OECD cross-national survey on trust in government and public institutions, representing over 50 000 responses across 22 OECD countries. The survey measures government performance across five drivers of trust – reliability, responsiveness, integrity, openness, and fairness – and provides insights for future policy reforms. This investigation marks an important initiative by OECD countries to measure and better understand what drives people’s trust in public institutions – a crucial part of reinforcing democracy…(More)”.

Citizen science in environmental and ecological sciences

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Dilek Fraisl et al: “Citizen science is an increasingly acknowledged approach applied in many scientific domains, and particularly within the environmental and ecological sciences, in which non-professional participants contribute to data collection to advance scientific research. We present contributory citizen science as a valuable method to scientists and practitioners within the environmental and ecological sciences, focusing on the full life cycle of citizen science practice, from design to implementation, evaluation and data management. We highlight key issues in citizen science and how to address them, such as participant engagement and retention, data quality assurance and bias correction, as well as ethical considerations regarding data sharing. We also provide a range of examples to illustrate the diversity of applications, from biodiversity research and land cover assessment to forest health monitoring and marine pollution. The aspects of reproducibility and data sharing are considered, placing citizen science within an encompassing open science perspective. Finally, we discuss its limitations and challenges and present an outlook for the application of citizen science in multiple science domains…(More)”.

The Theft of the Commons

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Eula Biss at The New Yorker: “…The idea that shared resources are inevitably ruined by people who exploit them is sometimes called the tragedy of the commons. This is not just an attitude that passes for common sense but an economic theory: “The Tragedy of the Commons” was the title of a 1968 essay by the ecologist Garrett Hardin. His essay has been cited so often that it has kept the word commons in use among people who know nothing about the commons. “The tragedy of the commons develops in this way,” Hardin wrote. “Picture a pasture open to all. It is to be expected that each herdsman will try to keep as many cattle as possible on the commons. Such an arrangement may work reasonably satisfactorily for centuries because tribal wars, poaching, and disease keep the numbers of both man and beast well below the carrying capacity of the land. Finally, however, comes the day of reckoning, that is, the day when the long-desired goal of social stability becomes a reality. At this point, the inherent logic of the commons remorselessly generates tragedy.”

Hardin was a white nationalist who subscribed to what is now called “replacement theory.” He believed that the United States needed to restrict nonwhite immigration, because, as he put it, “a multiethnic society is insanity.” In 1974, he published an essay titled “Lifeboat Ethics: The Case Against Helping the Poor,” in which he warned of the dangers of creating a world food bank: “The less provident and less able will multiply at the expense of the abler and more provident,” he wrote, “bringing eventual ruin upon all who share in the commons.”

Hardin was writing long after the commons had been lost to enclosure, and his commons was purely hypothetical. Actual, historical commons weren’t the free-for-all he imagined. In Laxton, villagers who held rights to Westwood Common could keep twenty sheep there, or the equivalent in cows. No one was allowed to keep more animals on the commons in summer than they could support in winter. Common rights were continuously revisited and revised in the course of centuries, as demand rose and fell. In 1662, the court fined a Laxton man “for not felling his part of thistles in the Town Moor.” As E. P. Thompson observed, “Commoners themselves were not without commonsense.”…(More)”.

Data for Peace and Humanitarian Response? The Case of the Ukraine-Russia War

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Behruz Davletov, Uma Kalkar, Salwa Mansuri, Marine Ragnet, and Stefaan Verhulst at Data & Policy: “Since the outbreak of hostilities between Russia and Ukraine on 24 February 2022, more than 4,889 (28,081 according to the Ukrainian government) civilians have been killed and over 7 million people have been displaced. The conflict has had a significant impact on civilians, particularly women and children. In response to the crisis, local and international organizations have sought to provide immediate humanitarian assistance, and initiated numerous initiatives to monitor violations and work toward peacebuilding and conflict resolution.

As in other areas of society, data and data science have become important to tailor, conduct, and monitor emergency responses in conflict zones. Data has also become crucial to support humanitarian action and peacebuilding. For example, data collected from satellite, GPS, and drone technologies can be used to map a conflict’s evolution, understand the needs of civilians, evaluate migration patterns, analyze discourses coming from both sides, and track the delivery of assistance.

This article focuses on the role that data has played in crisis response and peacebuilding related to the Russian-Ukrainian war so as to demonstrate how data can be used for peace. We consider a variety of publicly available evidence to examine various aspects of how data is playing a role in the ongoing conflict, mainly from a humanitarian response perspective. In particular, we consider the following aspects and taxonomy of data usage:

  • Prediction: Data is used to monitor and plan for likely events and risks both prior to and during the conflict;
  • Narratives: Data plays a critical role in both constructing and countering misinformation and disinformation;
  • Infrastructure Damage: Data can be used to track and respond to infrastructure damage, as well as to associated human rights violations and migration flows;
  • Human Rights Violations and Abuses: Data is used to identify and report human rights abuses, and to help construct a legal basis for justice;
  • Migration Flows: Large-scale population flows, both within Ukraine and toward neighboring countries, are one of the defining features of the conflict. Data is being used to monitor these flows, and to target humanitarian assistance;
  • Humanitarian Response: In addition to the above, data is also being used for a wide variety of humanitarian purposes, including ensuring basic and medical supplies, and addressing the resulting mental health crisis….(More)”.

Turning city planning into a game

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Brian Owens: “…The digital twins that Eicker’s team builds are powerful modelling tools — but, because they are complex and data-intensive, they are generally used only by experts. That’s something Eicker wants to change. “We want more people to use [these tools] in an easier, more accessible and more playful way,” she says.

So the team harnessed the Unity video-game engine, essentially a software-development workspace that is optimized for quickly and easily building interactive video-game environments, to create Future City Playgrounds. This puts their complex scientific models behind the scenes of a computer game, creating a sort of Minecraft for urban design. “You can change the parameters of your simulation models in a game and send that back to the computational engines and then see what that does for your carbon balance,” she says. “It’s still running pretty serious scientific calculations in the back end, but the user doesn’t see that any more.”

In the game, users can play with a digital version of Montreal: they can shape a single building or cluster of buildings to simulate a neighbourhood retrofit project, click on surfaces or streets to modify them, or design buildings in empty lots to see how changing materials or adding clean-energy systems can affect the neighbourhood’s character, energy use and emissions. The goal of the game is to create the most sustainable building with a budget of $1 million — for example, by adding highly insulating but expensive windows, optimizing the arrangement of rooftop solar panels or using rooftop vegetation to moderate demand for heating and cooling.

A larger web-based version of the project that does not use the game engine allows users to see the effects of city-wide changes — such as how retrofitting 50% of all buildings in Montreal built before 1950 would affect the city’s carbon footprint….(More)”.

Reorganise: 15 stories of workers fighting back in a digital age 

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Book edited by Hannah O’Rourke & Edward Saperia: “In only a decade, the labour market has changed beyond all recognition – from zero-hour contracts to platform monopolies. As capitalism has re-created itself for the digital age, so too must the workers whose labour underpins it.

From a union for instagram influencers to roadworkers organising through a Facebook Group, former WSJ journalist Lucy Harley-McKeown takes us on a journey to discover how workers are fighting back in the 21st century…(More)”.

Public preferences for governing AI technology: Comparative evidence

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Soenke Ehret: “Citizens’ attitudes concerning aspects of AI such as transparency, privacy, and discrimination have received considerable attention. However, it is an open question to what extent economic consequences affect preferences for public policies governing AI. When does the public demand imposing restrictions on – or even prohibiting – emerging AI technologies? Do average citizens’ preferences depend causally on normative and economic concerns or only on one of these causes? If both, how might economic risks and opportunities interact with assessments based on normative factors? And to what extent does the balance between the two kinds of concerns vary by context? I answer these questions using a comparative conjoint survey experiment conducted in Germany, the United Kingdom, India, Chile, and China. The data analysis suggests strong effects regarding AI systems’ economic and normative attributes. Moreover, I find considerable cross-country variation in normative preferences regarding the prohibition of AI systems vis-a-vis economic concerns…(More)”.

Can Privacy Nudges be Tailored to Individuals’ Decision Making and Personality Traits?

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Logan Warberg, Alessandro Acquisti and Douglas Sicker: “While the effectiveness of nudges in influencing user behavior has been documented within the literature, most prior work in the privacy field has focused on ‘one-size-fits-all’ interventions. Recent behavioral research has identified the potential of tailoring nudges to users by leveraging individual differences in decision making and personality. We present the results of three online experiments aimed at investigating whether nudges tailored to various psychometric scales can influence participants’ disclosure choices. Each study adopted a difference-in-differences design, testing whether differences in disclosure rates for participants presented with a nudge were affected by differences along various psychometric variables. Study 1 used a hypothetical disclosure scenario to measure participants’ responses to a single nudge. Study 2 and its replication (Study 3) tested responses in real disclosure scenarios to two nudges. Across all studies, we failed to find significant effects robustly linking any of the measured psychometric variables to differences in disclosure rates. We describe our study design and results along with a discussion of the practicality of using decision making and personality traits to tailor privacy nudges…(More)”.

Measuring human rights: facing a necessary challenge

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Essay by Eduardo Burkle: “Given the abundance of data available today, many assume the world already has enough accurate metrics on human rights performance. However, the political sensitivity of human rights has proven a significant barrier to access. Governments often avoid producing and sharing this type of information.

States’ compliance with their human rights obligations often receives a lot of attention. But there is still much discussion about how to measure it. At the same time, statistics and data increasingly drive political and bureaucratic decisions. This, in turn, brings some urgency to the task of ensuring the best possible data are available.

Establishing cross-national human rights measures is vital for research, advocacy, and policymaking. It can also have a direct effect on people’s enjoyment of human rights. Good data allow states and actors to evaluate how well their country is performing. It also lets them make comparisons that highlight which policies and institutions are truly effective in promoting human rights.

Good human rights data does more than simply evaluate how well a country is performing – it also identifies which policies and institutions are truly effective in promoting human rights

Such context makes it crucial to arm researchers, journalists, advocates, practitioners, investors, and companies with reliable information when raising human rights issues in their countries, and around the world…(More)”.