Paper by Yu-Shan Tseng: “Gamification in digital design harnesses game-like elements to create rewarding and competitive systems that encourage desirable user behaviour by influencing users’ bodily actions and emotions. Recently, gamification has been integrated into platforms built to fix democratic problems such as boredom and disengagement in political participation. This paper draws on an ethnographic study of two such platforms – Decide Madrid and vTaiwan – to problematise the universal, techno-deterministic account of digital democracy. I argue that gamified democracy is frictional by nature, a concept borrowed from cultural and social geographies. Incorporating gamification into interface design does not inherently enhance the user’s enjoyment, motivation and engagement through controlling their behaviours. ‘Friction’ in the user experience includes various emotional predicaments and tactical exploitation by more advanced users. Frictional systems in the sphere of digital democracy are neither positive nor negative per se. While they may threaten systemic inclusivity or hinder users’ abilities to organise and implement policy changes, friction can also provide new impetus to advance democratic practices…(More)”.
A new data deal: the case of Barcelona
Paper by Fernando Monge, Sarah Barns, Rainer Kattel and Francesca Bria: “Cities today are key sites for the operation of global digital marketplaces. It is at the curbsides and the intersections of cities where global digital platforms gain access to valuable urban data to be used in the delivery of data-driven urban services. Signalling an emerging role for city governments in contributing to regulatory responses to global digital platforms, a number of cities have in recent years tested their capacity to reclaim the urban data that is ‘harvested’ and monetised by digital platforms for improved local governance and participation. Focusing on the City of Barcelona, this paper investigates the conditions that enabled Barcelona to pivot from its strong focus on attracting commercial platforms under the rubric of smart city programs, to becoming one of the leading advocates of a citizen-first data rights and data sovereignty agenda. Through a series of interviews with key participants involved in the design and implementation of Barcelona’s data sovereignty program under Mayor Ada Colau, the paper examines the policy and governance instruments deployed by the city to regain access and control over data and discusses the challenges and tensions it faced during the implementation phases of the program. Finally, the paper presents the main lessons of the Barcelona experience for other cities, including a reflection on the role that cities can play in shaping a global agenda around improved data governance….(More)”.
The City as a Commons Reloaded: from the Urban Commons to Co-Cities Empirical Evidence on the Bologna Regulation
Chapter by Elena de Nictolis and Christian Iaione: “The City of Bologna is widely recognized for an innovative regulatory framework to enable urban commons. The “Regulation on public collaboration for the Urban Commons” produced more than 400 pacts of collaboration and was adopted by more than 180 Italian cities so far.
The chapter presents an empirical assessment of 280 pacts (2014-2016). The analytical approach is rooted in political economy (Polany 1944; Ahn & Ostrom 2003) and quality of democracy analysis (Diamond & Morlino, 2005). It investigates whether a model of co-governance applied to urban assets as commons impacts on the democratic qualities of equality and rule of law at the urban level. The findings suggest suggests that legal recognition of the urban commons is not sufficient if not coupled with an experimentalist policymaking approach to institutionally redesign the City as a platform enabling collective action of multi-stakeholder partnerships that should be entrusted with the task to trigger neighborhood-based sustainable development. Neighborhood scale investments that aim to seed community economic ventures emerge as a possible way to overcome the shortcomings of the first policy experiments. They also suggest the need for more investigation by scholars on the inclusiveness and diversity facets related to the implementation of urban commons policies….(More)”
Open data governance: civic hacking movement, topics and opinions in digital space
Paper by Mara Maretti, Vanessa Russo & Emiliano del Gobbo: “The expression ‘open data’ relates to a system of informative and freely accessible databases that public administrations make generally available online in order to develop an informative network between institutions, enterprises and citizens. On this topic, using the semantic network analysis method, the research aims to investigate the communication structure and the governance of open data in the Twitter conversational environment. In particular, the research questions are: (1) Who are the main actors in the Italian open data infrastructure? (2) What are the main conversation topics online? (3) What are the pros and cons of the development and use (reuse) of open data in Italy? To answer these questions, we went through three research phases: (1) analysing the communication network, we found who are the main influencers; (2) once we found who were the main actors, we analysed the online content in the Twittersphere to detect the semantic areas; (3) then, through an online focus group with the main open data influencers, we explored the characteristics of Italian open data governance. Through the research, it has been shown that: (1) there is an Italian open data governance strategy; (2) the Italian civic hacker community plays an important role as an influencer; but (3) there are weaknesses in governance and in practical reuse….(More)”.
Decide Madrid: A Critical Analysis of an Award-Winning e-Participation Initiative
Paper by Sonia Royo, Vicente Pina and Jaime Garcia-Rayado: “This paper analyzes the award-winning e-participation initiative of the city council of Madrid, Decide Madrid, to identify the critical success factors and the main barriers that are conditioning its performance. An exploratory case study is used as a research technique, including desk research and semi-structured interviews. The analysis distinguishes contextual, organizational and individual level factors; it considers whether the factors or barriers are more related to the information and communication technology (ICT) component, public sector context or democratic participation; it also differentiates among the different stages of the development of the initiative. Results show that individual and organizational factors related to the public sector context and democratic participation are the most relevant success factors.
The high expectations of citizens explain the high levels of participation in the initial stages of Decide Madrid. However, the lack of transparency and poor functioning of some of its participatory activities (organizational factors related to the ICT and democratic dimensions) are negatively affecting its performance. The software created for this platform, Consul, has been adopted or it is in the process of being implemented in more than 100 institutions in 33 countries. Therefore, the findings of this research can potentially be useful to improve the performance and sustainability of e-participation platforms worldwide…(More)”.
‘Come together?’ Citizens and civil servants dialogue and trust
Paper by Cecilia Güemes and Jorge Resina: “Trust is a key element in the co‐creation of solution for public problems. Working together is a gradual learning exercise that helps to shape emotions and attitudes and to create the foundations of trust. However, little is known about how institutions can promote trust. With the intention of going deeper into the subject, this paper focuses on a local experience in Spain: Madrid Escucha, a City Council initiative aimed at stimulating dialogue between officials and citizens around projects to improve city life. Three are our questions: who participate in these spaces, how the interactions are, and what advances are achieved. Based on qualitative research, empirical findings confirm a biased participation in this kind of scenarios as well as the presence of prejudices on both sides, an interaction characterised by initial idealism followed by discouragement and a possible readjustment, and a final satisfaction with the process even when results are not successful….(More)”.
Citizen Engagement in Energy Efficiency Retrofit of Public Housing Buildings: A Lisbon Case Study
Paper by Catarina Rolim and Ricardo Gomes: “In Portugal, there are about 120 thousand social housing and a large share of them are in need of some kind of rehabilitation. Alongside the technical challenge associated with the retrofit measures implementation, there is the challenge of involving the citizens in adopting more energy conscious behaviors. Within the Sharing Cities project and, specifically in the case of social housing retrofit, engagement activities with the tenants are being promoted, along with participation from city representatives, decision makers, stakeholders, and among others. This paper will present a methodology outlined to evaluate the impact of retrofit measures considering the citizen as a crucial retrofit stakeholder. The approach ranges from technical analysis and data monitoring but also conveys activities such as educational and training sessions, interviews, surveys, workshops, public events, and focus groups. These will be conducted during the different stages of project implementation; the definition process, during deployment and beyond deployment of solutions….(More)”.
Handbook of Research on Politics in the Computer Age
Book edited by Ashu M. G. Solo: “Technology and particularly the Internet have caused many changes in the realm of politics. Aspects of engineering, computer science, mathematics, or natural science can be applied to politics. Politicians and candidates use their own websites and social network profiles to get their message out. Revolutions in many countries in the Middle East and North Africa have started in large part due to social networking websites such as Facebook and Twitter. Social networking has also played a role in protests and riots in numerous countries. The mainstream media no longer has a monopoly on political commentary as anybody can set up a blog or post a video online. Now, political activists can network together online.
The Handbook of Research on Politics in the Computer Age is a pivotal reference source that serves to increase the understanding of methods for politics in the computer age, the effectiveness of these methods, and tools for analyzing these methods. The book includes research chapters on different aspects of politics with information technology, engineering, computer science, or math, from 27 researchers at 20 universities and research organizations in Belgium, Brazil, Cape Verde, Egypt, Finland, France, Hungary, Italy, Mexico, Nigeria, Norway, Portugal, and the United States of America. Highlighting topics such as online campaigning and fake news, the prospective audience includes, but is not limited to, researchers, political and public policy analysts, political scientists, engineers, computer scientists, political campaign managers and staff, politicians and their staff, political operatives, professors, students, and individuals working in the fields of politics, e-politics, e-government, new media and communication studies, and Internet marketing….(More)”.
Index: Secondary Uses of Personal Data
By Alexandra Shaw, Andrew Zahuranec, Andrew Young, Stefaan Verhulst
The Living Library Index–inspired by the Harper’s Index–provides important statistics and highlights global trends in governance innovation. This installment focuses on public perceptions regarding secondary uses of personal data (or the re-use of data initially collected for a different purpose). It provides a summary of societal perspectives toward personal data usage, sharing, and control. It is not meant to be comprehensive–rather, it intends to illustrate conflicting, and often confusing, attitudes toward the re-use of personal data.
Please share any additional, illustrative statistics on data, or other issues at the nexus of technology and governance, with us at firstname.lastname@example.org
Data ownership and control
- Percentage of Americans who say it is “very important” they control information collected about them: 74% – 2016
- Americans who think that today’s privacy laws are not good enough at protecting people’s privacy online: 68% – 2016
- Americans who say they have “a lot” of control over how companies collect and use their information: 9% – 2015
- In a survey of 507 online shoppers, the number of respondents who indicated they don’t want brands tracking their location: 62% – 2015
- In a survey of 507 online shoppers, the amount who “prefer offers that are targeted to where they are and what they are doing:” 60% – 2015
- Number of surveyed American consumers willing to provide data to corporations under the following conditions:
- “Data about my social concerns to better connect me with non-profit organizations that advance those causes:” 19% – 2018
- “Data about my DNA to help me uncover any hereditary illnesses:” 21% – 2018
- “Data about my interests and hobbies to receive relevant information and offers from online sellers:” 32% – 2018
- “Data about my location to help me find the fastest route to my destination:” 40% – 2018
- “My email address to receive exclusive offers from my favorite brands:” 56% – 2018
- Academic study participants willing to donate personal data to research if it could lead to public good: 60% – 2014
- Academic study participants willing to share personal data for research purposes in the interest of public good: 25% – 2014
- Percentage who expect companies to “treat [them] like an individual, not as a member of some segment like ‘millennials’ or ‘suburban mothers:’” 74% – 2018
- Percentage who believe that brands should understand a “consumer’s individual situation (e.g. marital status, age, location, etc.)” when they’re being marketed to: 70% – 2018 Number who are “more annoyed” by companies now compared to 5 years ago: 40% – 2018Percentage worried their data is shared across companies without their permission: 88% – 2018Amount worried about a brand’s ability to track their behavior while on the brand’s website, app, or neither: 75% – 2018
- Consumers globally who expect brands to anticipate needs before they arise: 33% – 2018
- Surveyed residents of the United Kingdom who identify as:
- “Data pragmatists” willing to share personal data “under the right circumstances:” 58% – 2017
- “Fundamentalists,” who would not share personal data for better services: 24% – 2017
- Respondents who think data sharing is part of participating in the modern economy: 62% – 2018
- Respondents who believe that data sharing benefits enterprises more than consumers: 75% – 2018
- People who want more control over their data that enterprises collect: 84% – 2018
- Percentage “unconcerned” about personal data protection: 18% – 2018
- Percentage of Americans who think that government should do more to regulate large technology companies: 55% – 2018
- Registered American voters who trust broadband companies with personal data “a great deal” or “a fair amount”: 43% – 2017
- Americans who report experiencing a major data breach: 64% – 2017
- Number of Americans who believe that their personal data is less secure than it was 5 years ago: 49% – 2019
- Amount of surveyed American citizens who consider trust in a company an important factor for sharing data: 54% – 2018
Microsoft’s 2015 Consumer Data Value Exchange Report attempts to understand consumer attitudes on the exchange of personal data across the global markets of Australia, Brazil, Canada, Colombia, Egypt, Germany, Kenya, Mexico, Nigeria, Spain, South Africa, United Kingdom and the United States. From their survey of 16,500 users, they find:
- The most popular incentives for sharing data are:
- Respondents who would prefer to see more ads to get new services: 34% – 2015
- Respondents willing to share search terms for a service that enabled fewer steps to get things done: 70% – 2015
- Respondents willing to share activity data for such an improvement: 82% – 2015
- Respondents willing to share their gender for “a service that inspires something new based on others like them:” 79% – 2015
A 2015 Pew Research Center survey presented Americans with several data-sharing scenarios related to convenience. Participants could respond: “acceptable,” “it depends,” or “not acceptable” to the following scenarios:
- Share health information to get access to personal health records and arrange appointments more easily:
- Share data for discounted auto insurance rates:
- Share data for free social media services:
- Share data on smart thermostats for cheaper energy bills:
- Surveyed banking and insurance customers who would exchange personal data for:
- Surveyed banking and insurance customers willing to share data specifically related to income, location and lifestyle habits to:
- In a survey of over 7,000 members of the public around the globe, respondents indicated:
- They thought “smartphone and tablet apps used for navigation, chat, and news that can access your contacts, photos, and browsing history” is “creepy;” 16% – 2016
- Emailing a friend about a trip to Paris and receiving advertisements for hotels, restaurants and excursions in Paris is “creepy:” 32% – 2016
- A free fitness-tracking device that monitors your well-being and sends a monthly report to you and your employer is “creepy:” 45% – 2016
- A telematics device that allows emergency services to track your vehicle is “creepy:” 78% – 2016
- The number of British residents who do not want to work with virtual agents of any kind: 48% – 2017
- Americans who disagree that “if companies give me a discount, it is a fair exchange for them to collect information about me without my knowing”: 91% – 2015
Data Brokers, Intermediaries, and Third Parties
- Americans who consider it acceptable for a grocery store to offer a free loyalty card in exchange for selling their shopping data to third parties: 47% – 2016
- Number of people who know that “searches, site visits and purchases” are reviewed without consent: 55% – 2015
- The number of people in 1991 who wanted companies to ask them for permission first before collecting their personal information and selling that data to intermediaries: 93% – 1991
- Number of Americans who “would be very concerned if the company at which their data were stored sold it to another party:” 90% – 2008
- Percentage of Americans who think it’s unacceptable for their grocery store to share their shopping data with third parties in exchange for a free loyalty card: 32% – 2016
- Percentage of Americans who think that government needs to do more to regulate advertisers: 64% – 2016
- Registered American voters who are “somewhat uncomfortable” or “very uncomfortable” with companies like Internet service providers or websites using personal data to recommend stories, articles, or videos: 56% – 2017
- Registered American voters who are “somewhat uncomfortable” or “very uncomfortable” with companies like Internet service providers or websites selling their personal information to third parties for advertising purposes: 64% – 2017
Personal Health Data
The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation’s 2014 Health Data Exploration Project Report analyzes attitudes about personal health data (PHD). PHD is self-tracking data related to health that is traceable through wearable devices and sensors. The three major stakeholder groups involved in using PHD for public good are users, companies that track the users’ data, and researchers.
- Overall Respondents:
- Percentage who believe anonymity is “very” or “extremely” important: 67% – 2014
- Percentage who “probably would” or “definitely would” share their personal data with researchers: 78% – 2014
- Percentage who believe that they own—or should own—all the data about them, even when it is indirectly collected: 54% – 2014
- Percentage who think they share or ought to share ownership with the company: 30% – 2014
- Percentage who think companies alone own or should own all the data about them: 4% – 2014
- Percentage for whom data ownership “is not something I care about”: 13% – 2014
- Percentage who indicated they wanted to own their data: 75% – 2014
- Percentage who would share data only if “privacy were assured:” 68% – 2014
- People who would supply data regardless of privacy or compensation: 27% – 2014
- Percentage of participants who mentioned privacy, anonymity, or confidentiality when asked under what conditions they would share their data: 63% – 2014
- Percentage who would be “more” or “much more” likely to share data for compensation: 56% – 2014
- Percentage who indicated compensation would make no difference: 38% – 2014
- Amount opposed to commercial or profit-making use of their data: 13% – 2014
- Percentage of people who would only share personal health data with a guarantee of:
- Surveyed Researchers:
- Percentage who agree or strongly agree that self-tracking data would help provide more insights in their research: 89% – 2014
- Percentage who say PHD could answer questions that other data sources could not: 95% – 2014
- Percentage who have used public datasets: 57% – 2014
- Percentage who have paid for data for research: 19% – 2014
- Percentage who have used self-tracking data before for research purposes: 46% – 2014
- Percentage who have worked with application, device, or social media companies: 23% – 2014
- Percentage who “somewhat disagree” or “strongly disagree” there are barriers that cannot be overcome to using self-tracking data in their research: 82% – 2014
“2019 Accenture Global Financial Services Consumer Study: Discover the Patterns in Personality”, Accenture, 2019.
“Americans’ Views About Data Collection and Security”, Pew Research Center, 2015.
“Data Donation: Sharing Personal Data for Public Good?”, ResearchGate, 2014.
“Data privacy: What the consumer really thinks,” Acxiom, 2018.
“Exclusive: Public wants Big Tech regulated”, Axios, 2018.
“Consumer data value exchange,” Microsoft, 2015.
“Crossing the Line: Staying on the right side of consumer privacy,” KPMG International Cooperative, 2016.
“How do you feel about the government sharing our personal data? – livechat”, The Guardian, 2017.
“Personal data for public good: using health information in medical research”, The Academy of Medical Sciences, 2006.
“Personal Data for the Public Good: New Opportunities to Enrich Understanding of Individual and Population Health”, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Health Data Exploration Project, Calit2, UC Irvine and UC San Diego, 2014.
“Pew Internet and American Life Project: Cloud Computing Raises Privacy Concerns”, Pew Research Center, 2008.
“Poll: Little Trust That Tech Giants Will Keep Personal Data Private”, Morning Consult & Politico, 2017.
“Privacy and Information Sharing”, Pew Research Center, 2016.
“Privacy, Data and the Consumer: What US Thinks About Sharing Data”, MarTech Advisor, 2018.
“Public Opinion on Privacy”, Electronic Privacy Information Center, 2019.
“Selligent Marketing Cloud Study Finds Consumer Expectations and Marketer Challenges are Rising in Tandem”, Selligent Marketing Cloud, 2018.
“The Data-Sharing Disconnect: The Impact of Context, Consumer Trust, and Relevance in Retail Marketing,” Boxever, 2015.
“Microsoft Research reveals understanding gap in the brand-consumer data exchange,” Microsoft Research, 2015.
“Survey: 58% will share personal data under the right circumstances”, Marketing Land: Third Door Media, 2019.
“The state of privacy in post-Snowden America”, Pew Research Center, 2016.
The Tradeoff Fallacy: How Marketers Are Misrepresenting American Consumers And Opening Them Up to Exploitation”, University of Pennsylvania, 2015.
Index: The Data Universe 2019
By Michelle Winowatan, Andrew J. Zahuranec, Andrew Young, Stefaan Verhulst, Max Jun Kim
The Living Library Index – inspired by the Harper’s Index – provides important statistics and highlights global trends in governance innovation. This installment focuses on the data universe.
Please share any additional, illustrative statistics on data, or other issues at the nexus of technology and governance, with us at email@example.com
- Percentage of the world’s population that uses the internet: 51.2% (3.9 billion people) – 2018
- Number of search processed worldwide by Google every year: at least 2 trillion – 2016
- Website traffic worldwide generated through mobile phones: 52.2% – 2018
- The total number of mobile subscriptions in the first quarter of 2019: 7.9 billion (addition of 44 million in quarter) – 2019
- Amount of mobile data traffic worldwide: nearly 30 billion GB – 2018
- Data category with highest traffic worldwide: video (60%) – 2018
- Global average of data traffic per smartphone per month: 5.6 GB – 2018
- Time between the creation of each new bitcoin block: 9.27 minutes – 2019
- Total hours of video streamed by Netflix users every minute: 97,222 – 2017
- Hours of YouTube watched per day: over 1 billion – 2018
- Number of tracks uploaded to Spotify every day: Over 20,000 – 2019
- Number of Spotify’s monthly active users: 232 million – 2019
- Spotify’s total subscribers: 108 million – 2019
- Spotify’s hours of content listened: 17 billion – 2019
- Total number of songs on Spotify’s catalog: over 30 million – 2019
- Apple Music’s total subscribers: 60 million – 2019
- Total number of songs on Apple Music’s catalog: 45 million – 2019
- Number of snaps shared by Snapchat users every day: Over 3.5 billion – 2017
- Number of tweets sent every day: 500 million – 2019
- Number of Instagram users: over 700 million – 2017
- Amount of data created by Facebook in a day: 4,000,000 GB – 2014
- Number of LinkedIn members: 645 million – 2019
- LinkedIn sign-up rate: 2 members per second – 2019
- Number of photos and videos shared on Instagram every day: 95 million – 2019
- Tinder dates per week: 1 million – 2019
- Total matches on Tinder: over 30 billion – 2019
- Most popular month on Tinder in the US: August – 2018
- Day: Monday – 2018
- Time of day: 9 PM EST – 2018
Calls and Messaging:
- Estimated robocalls made in the US: 47.8 billion – 2018
- Number of messages sent over WhatsApp each day: 65 billion – 2018
- Minutes of voice and video calls made on WhatsApp each day: 2 billion – 2018
- Top 3 most popular messaging apps worldwide: WhatsApp, Facebook Messenger, WeChat – 2019
- Worldwide email users: 2.943 billion – 2019
- Number of emails sent/received per day: 246.5 billion – 2019
- Number of packages shipped by Amazon in a year: 5 billion – 2017
- Total value of payments processed by Venmo in a year: USD 62 billion – 2019
- Based on an independent analysis of public transactions on Venmo in 2017:
- Number of public transactions on Venmo: 207,984,218 – 2017
- Top 5 most frequent last name on Venmo: Smith, Johnson, Lee, Williams, Brown
- Number of transactions that involved pizza or the pizza emoji: 2,979,619 – 2017
- Number of transactions involving house and money with wings emoji or rent: 3,020,484
- Based on a non-representative survey of 2,436 US consumers between the ages of 21 and 72 on P2P platforms:
- The average volume of transactions handled by Venmo: USD 64.2 billion – 2019
- The average volume of transactions handled by Zelle: USD 122.0 billion – 2019
- The average volume of transactions handled by PayPal: USD 141.8 billion – 2019
- Platform with the highest percent adoption among all consumers: PayPal (48%) – 2019
Internet of Things:
- Number of connected IoT devices worldwide: 8.3 billion – 2018
- Number of new devices connected to the Internet every second: 127 – 2017
- Number of wearable devices: 526 million – 2017
- Based on aggregated and anonymized data of Fitbit users from January 1, 2018 – 2018
- Total steps taken: 27 trillion – 2018
- Total hours slept: 12 billion – 2018
- Total active minutes: 119 billion – 2018
- Top 5 countries/territories with most steps: Hong Kong, Spain, Ireland, Sweden, Germany – 2018
- Top 5 countries that get the most sleep: Finland, New Zealand, Ireland, Belgium, Netherlands – 2018
- Top 5 US locales with the lowest resting heart rate: Bend, OR; Santa Barbara, Santa Maria, and San Luis Obispo, CA; Twin Falls, ID; Monterey-Salinas, CA; Juneau, AK – 2018
- Amount of data produced by an autonomous car in a one and a half hour of driving: – 4,000 GB
- Al-Heeti, Abrar. “WhatsApp: 65B Messages Sent Each Day, and More than 2B Minutes of Calls.” CNET, May 1, 2018. https://www.cnet.com/news/whatsapp-65-billion-messages-sent-each-day-and-more-than-2-billion-minutes-of-calls/.
- Bhuiyan, Johana. “Uber Powered Four Billion Rides in 2017. It Wants to Do More — and Cheaper — in 2018.” Vox, January 5, 2018. https://www.vox.com/2018/1/5/16854714/uber-four-billion-rides-coo-barney-harford-2018-cut-costs-customer-service.
- Blockchain Staff. “Bitcoin Currency Statistics.” Blockchain.com, August 2019. https://www.blockchain.com/stats.
- Carman, Ashley. “Amazon Shipped over 5 Billion Items Worldwide through Prime in 2017.” The Verge, January 2, 2018. https://www.theverge.com/2018/1/2/16841786/amazon-prime-2017-users-ship-five-billion.
- Cisco®. “Cisco Visual Networking Index: Global Mobile Data Traffic Forecast Update, 2017–2022 White Paper.” Cisco, February 18, 2019. https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/solutions/collateral/service-provider/visual-networking-index-vni/white-paper-c11-738429.html.
- Clement, J. “Mobile Share of Website Visits Worldwide 2018.” Statistica, July 22, 2019. https://www.statista.com/statistics/241462/global-mobile-phone-website-traffic-share/.
- ———. “Most Popular Messaging Apps 2019.” Statistica, August 9, 2019. https://www.statista.com/statistics/258749/most-popular-global-mobile-messenger-apps/.
- Desjardins, Jeff. “How Much Data Is Generated Each Day?” World Economic Forum, April 17, 2019. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/04/how-much-data-is-generated-each-day-cf4bddf29f/.
- Do Thi Duc, Hang. “PUBLIC BY DEFAULT – Venmo Stories of 2017.” Public By Default FYI, 2018. https://publicbydefault.fyi.
- Dwyer, Erin. “2017 on Netflix – A Year in Bingeing.” Netflix Media Center, December 11, 2017. https://media.netflix.com/en/press-releases/2017-on-netflix-a-year-in-bingeing.
- Fisher, Christine. “Apple Music Now Has 60 Million Paid Subscribers.” Engadget, June 27, 2019. https://www.engadget.com/2019/06/27/apple-music-60-million-paid-subscribers/.
- Instagram. “700 Million.” Instagram Press (blog), April 26, 2017. https://instagram-press.com/blog/2017/04/26/700-million/.
- Jonsson, Peter, Stephen Carson, Andres Torres, Per Lindberg, Kati Öhman, Athanasios Karapantelakis, Shamil Bajgin, et al. “Ericsson Mobility Report.” Stockholm, Sweden: Ericsson, 2019. https://www.ericsson.com/49d1d9/assets/local/mobility-report/documents/2019/ericsson-mobility-report-june-2019.pdf.
- Lasse Lueth, Knud. “State of the IoT 2018: Number of IoT Devices Now at 7B – Market Accelerating,” August 8, 2018. https://iot-analytics.com/state-of-the-iot-update-q1-q2-2018-number-of-iot-devices-now-7b/.
- Levenson, Josh, and Parker Hall. “Apple Music vs. Spotify.” Digital Trends, August 7, 2019. https://www.digitaltrends.com/music/apple-music-vs-spotify/.
- LinkedIn. “About Us.” LinkedIn, 2019. https://news.linkedin.com/about-us.
- Patel, Mark, Jason Shangkuan, and Christopher Thomas. “What’s New with the Internet of Things? | McKinsey.” McKinsey & Company, May 2017. https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/semiconductors/our-insights/whats-new-with-the-internet-of-things.
- Trefis Research Team. “Estimating Lyft’s Valuation.” Trefis, 2019. https://dashboards.trefis.com/no-login-required/zrRBRShU/Estimating-Lyft’s-Valuation.
- Rooney, Kate. “PayPal’s Venmo Had a Break-out Quarter with Payments Surging 80%.” CNBC, January 31, 2019. https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/31/venmo-had-a-break-out-quarter-but-wont-make-money-for-paypal-until-at-mid-2019–.html.
- Shevlin, Ron. “Fintech Adoption in the US: The Opportunity for Banks and Credit Unions.” Scottsdale, AZ: Cornerstone Advisors, 2018. https://www.q2ebanking.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/20181107-Q2-Fintech-Adoption-Index.pdf.
- Smith. “Fitbit’s Fittest: The Countries (And Cities) That Stepped It Up and Slept More In 2018.” Fitbit Blog, January 12, 2019. https://blog.fitbit.com/fitbit-year-in-review-2018/.
- Snap, Inc. “Snap Inc. Reports Fourth Quarter and Full Year 2017 Results.” Snap, February 6, 2018. https://investor.snap.com/~/media/Files/S/Snap-IR/reports-and-presentations/q4-17-earnings-slides.pdf.
- Spotify. “Music – FAQ.” Spotify, 2019. https://artists.spotify.com/faq/music.
- ———. “Spotify Reports Second Quarter 2019 Earnings.” Spotify, July 31, 2019. https://newsroom.spotify.com/2019-07-31/spotify-reports-second-quarter-2019-earnings/.
- Sullivan, Danny. “Google Now Handles at Least 2 Trillion Searches per Year.” Search Engine Land, May 24, 2016. https://searchengineland.com/google-now-handles-2-999-trillion-searches-per-year-250247.
- The Radicati Group, Inc. “Email Statistics Report, 2015-2019: Executive Summary.” The Radicati Group, Inc, March 2015. https://www.radicati.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Email-Statistics-Report-2015-2019-Executive-Summary.pdf.
- Tinder Press Team. “Tinder Press and Brand Assets.” Tinder, 2019. https://tinder.com.
- Tinder Staff. “This Is What Happened On Tinder In 2018.” Swipe Life, December 5, 2018. https://swipelife.tinder.com/post/tinder-2018.
- Twitter, Inc. “Twitter for Business.” Twitter, 2019. https://business.twitter.com/en.html.
- Wiener, Janet, and Nathan Bronson. “Facebook’s Top Open Data Problems.” Facebook Research (blog), October 22, 2014. https://research.fb.com/blog/2014/10/facebook-s-top-open-data-problems/.
- Winter, Kathy. “For Self-Driving Cars, There’s Big Meaning Behind One Big Number: 4 Terabytes.” Intel Newsroom, April 14, 2017. https://newsroom.intel.com/editorials/self-driving-cars-big-meaning-behind-one-number-4-terabytes/.
- YouMail. “YouMail Robocall Index: July 2019 Nationwide Robocall Data.” Robocall Index, 2019. https://robocallindex.com/.
- YouTube Press Team. “Press – YouTube.” YouTube, August 2019. https://www.youtube.com/yt/about/press/.
- Zavazava, Cosmas, Rati Skhirtladze, Vanessa Gray, Esperanza Magpantay, Daniela Pokorna, Martin Schaaper, and Ivan Vallejo. “Measuring the Information Society Report 2018 – Volume 1.” Geneva, Switzerland: International Telecommunication Union, 2018. https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/Documents/publications/misr2018/MISR-2018-Vol-1-E.pdf.