Democracy is dead: long live democracy!

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Helen Margetts in OpenDemocracy: “In the course of the World Forum for Democracy 2017, and in political commentary more generally, social media are blamed for almost everything that is wrong with democracy. They are held responsible for pollution of the democratic environment through fake news, junk science, computational propaganda and aggressive micro-targeting. In turn, these phenomena have been blamed for the rise of populism, political polarization, far-right extremism and radicalisation, waves of hate against women and minorities, post-truth, the end of representative democracy, fake democracy and ultimately, the death of democracy. It feels like the tirade of relatives of the deceased at the trial of the murderer. It is extraordinary how much of this litany is taken almost as given, the most gloomy prognoses as certain visions of the future.

Yet actually we know rather little about the relationship between social media and democracy. Because ten years of the internet and social media have challenged everything we thought we knew.  They have injected volatility and instability into political systems, bringing a continual cast of unpredictable events. They bring into question normative models of democracy – by which we might understand the macro-level shifts at work  – seeming to make possible the highest hopes and worst fears of republicanism and pluralism.

They have transformed the ecology of interest groups and mobilizations. They have challenged élites and ruling institutions, bringing regulatory decay and policy sclerosis. They create undercurrents of political life that burst to the surface in seemingly random ways, making fools of opinion polls and pollsters. And although the platforms themselves generate new sources of real-time transactional data that might be used to understand and shape this changed environment, most of this data is proprietary and inaccessible to researchers, meaning that the revolution in big data and data science has passed by democracy research.

What do we know? The value of tiny acts

Certainly digital media are entwined with every democratic institution and the daily lives of citizens. When deciding whether to vote, to support, to campaign, to demonstrate, to complain – digital media are with us at every step, shaping our information environment and extending our social networks by creating hundreds or thousands of ‘weak ties’, particularly for users of social media platforms such as Facebook or Instagram….(More)”.

Manipulating Social Media to Undermine Democracy

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Freedom of the Net 2017 Report by the Freedom House: “Governments around the world have dramatically increased their efforts to manipulate information on social media over the past year. The Chinese and Russianregimes pioneered the use of surreptitious methods to distort online discussions and suppress dissent more than a decade ago, but the practice has since gone global. Such state-led interventions present a major threat to the notion of the internet as a liberating technology.

Online content manipulation contributed to a seventh consecutive year of overall decline in internet freedom, along with a rise in disruptions to mobile internet service and increases in physical and technical attacks on human rights defenders and independent media.

Nearly half of the 65 countries assessed in Freedom on the Net 2017 experienced declines during the coverage period, while just 13 made gains, most of them minor. Less than one-quarter of users reside in countries where the internet is designated Free, meaning there are no major obstacles to access, onerous restrictions on content, or serious violations of user rights in the form of unchecked surveillance or unjust repercussions for legitimate speech.

The use of “fake news,” automated “bot” accounts, and other manipulation methods gained particular attention in the United States. While the country’s online environment remained generally free, it was troubled by a proliferation of fabricated news articles, divisive partisan vitriol, and aggressive harassment of many journalists, both during and after the presidential election campaign.

Russia’s online efforts to influence the American election have been well documented, but the United States was hardly alone in this respect. Manipulation and disinformation tactics played an important role in elections in at least 17 other countries over the past year, damaging citizens’ ability to choose their leaders based on factual news and authentic debate. Although some governments sought to support their interests and expand their influence abroad—as with Russia’s disinformation campaigns in the United States and Europe—in most cases they used these methods inside their own borders to maintain their hold on power.

Venezuela, the Philippines, and Turkey were among 30 countries where governments were found to employ armies of “opinion shapers” to spread government views, drive particular agendas, and counter government critics on social media. The number of governments attempting to control online discussions in this manner has risen each year since Freedom House began systematically tracking the phenomenon in 2009. But over the last few years, the practice has become significantly more widespread and technically sophisticated, with bots, propaganda producers, and fake news outlets exploiting social media and search algorithms to ensure high visibility and seamless integration with trusted content.

Unlike more direct methods of censorship, such as website blocking or arrests for internet activity, online content manipulation is difficult to detect. It is also more difficult to combat, given its dispersed nature and the sheer number of people and bots employed for this purpose… (More)”.

Smart Cities, Smarter Citizens

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Free eBook courtesy of PTC.com: “The smart city movement is on a roll. Technology leaders are looking to transform major cities through advanced computer technologies, sensors, high-speed data networks, predictive analytics, big data, and IoT. But, as Mike Barlow explains in this O’Reilly report, the story goes beyond technology. Citizens, too, will need to play a large role in turning cities into smart, livable environments.

According to a United Nations report, by 2050 two-thirds of humanity will live in more than 40 mega-cities of 10 million people each. All of them will need to determine how to deliver more services with fewer resources. Cities will have to improve efficiency and reduce expenditures wherever possible, through new technologies and other means.

To create a thriving environment where innovation can blossom, citizens will not only be called upon to generate much of the data, but they’ll also need to be at the center of decision-making, based on what that data reveals.

Download this report today, and learn about the progress that various groups and organizations have already made in major cities around the world, and what lies ahead for all of us….(More)”.

Most of the public doesn’t know what open data is or how to use it

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Jason Shueh at Statescoop: “New survey results show that despite the aggressive growth of open data, there is a drastic need for greater awareness and accessibility.

Results of a global survey published last month by Singapore’s Government Technology agency (GovTech) and the Economist Intelligence Unit, a British forecasting and advisory firm, show that open data is not being utilized as effectively as it could be. Researchers surveyed more than 1,000 residents in the U.S. and nine other leading open data counties and found that “an overwhelming” number of respondents say the primary barrier to open data’s use and effectiveness is a lack of public awareness.

The study reports that 50 percent of respondents said that national and local governments need to expand their civic engagements efforts on open data.

“Half of respondents say there is not enough awareness in their country about open government data initiatives and their benefits or potential uses,” the reports notes. “This is seen as the biggest barrier to more open government data use, particularly by citizens in India and Mexico.”

Accessibility is named as the second largest hurdle, with 31 percent calling for more relevant data. Twenty-five percent say open data is difficult to use due to a lack of standardized formats and another 25 percent say they don’t have the skills to understand open data.

Those calling for more relevant data say they wanted to see more information on crime, the economy and the environment, yet report they are happy with the availability and use of open data related to transportation….

When asked to name the main benefit of open data, 70 percent say greater transparency, 78 percent say to drive a better quality of life, and 53 percent cite better decision making….(More)”.

The Pnyx and the Agora

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Richard Sennett at ReadingDesign: “I am not going to speak about the present, but about the past: about the foundations on which our democracy is based. These foundations were rooted in cities, in their civic spaces. We need to remember this history to think about how democratic cities should be made today.

A democracy supposes people can consider views other than their own. This was Aristotle’s notion in the Politics. He thought the awareness of difference occurs only in cities, since the every city is formed by synoikismos, a drawing together of different families and tribes, of competing economic interests, of natives with foreigners.

“Difference” today seems about identity — we think of race, gender, or class. Aristotle’s meant something more by difference; he included also the experience of doing different things, of acting in divergent ways which do not neatly fit together. The mixture in a city of action as well as identity is the foundation of its distinctive politics. Aristotle’s hope was that when a person becomes accustomed to a diverse, complex milieu he or she will cease reacting violently when challenged by something strange or contrary. Instead, this environment should create an outlook favourable to discussion of differing views or conflicting interests. Almost all modern urban planners subscribe to this Aristotelian principle. But if in the same space different persons or activities are merely concentrated, but each remains isolated and segregated, diversity loses its force. Differences have to interact.

Classical urbanism imagines two kinds of spaces in which this interaction could occur. One was the pnyx, an ampitheatre in which citizens listed to debates and took collective decisions; the other was the agora, the town square in which people were exposed to difference in a more raw, unmediated form….(More)”

Smart contracts: terminology, technical limitations and real world complexity

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Eliza Mik at Law, Innovation and Technology: “If one is to believe the popular press and many “technical writings,” blockchains create not only a perfect transactional environment but also obviate the need for banks, lawyers and courts. The latter will soon be replaced by smart contracts: unbiased and infallible computer programs that form, perform and enforce agreements. Predictions of future revolutions must, however, be distinguished from the harsh reality of the commercial marketplace and the technical limitations of blockchains. The fact that a technological solution is innovative and elegant need not imply that it is commercially useful or legally viable. Apart from attempting a terminological “clean-up” surrounding the term smart contract, this paper presents some technological and legal constraints on their use. It confronts the popular claims concerning their ability to automate transactions and to ensure perfect performance. It also examines the possibility of reducing contractual relationships to code and the ability to integrate smart contracts with the complexities of the real world. A closer analysis reveals that smart contracts can hardly be regarded as a semi-mythical technology liberating the contracting parties from the shackles of traditional legal and financial institutions….(More)”.

Creative campaign helps earthquake victims

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Springwise: “There were many offers of help after the shocking earthquake in Mexico on 19th September, but two creative directors from Mexico City agency Anonimo decided to do something a bit different. They created Arriba Mexico (which roughly translates as Up With Mexico), a website that initially looks very similar to a home rental site such as Airbnb, but rather than paying to stay in the home, the money paid actually goes directly to help those affected.

The site lists a number of properties destroyed in the earthquake, along with a description and photographs. Titles like ‘Rent a Loft in the Roma Neighborhood’ and ‘Stay in a Room in the Heart of Chiapas’ lead through to a description of the property and the price per night’s stay – which the site naturally informs is a symbolic stay. The user picks the property and the number of nights they’d like to stay for, and the total figure is their donation. 100 percent of the money raised goes directly to CADENA, a disaster relief charity. Some of the money was spent on shelters to provide temporary accommodation, while the eventual aim is to use the remaining funds to rebuild homes in the most heavily damaged areas of Mexico City, Puebla, Oaxaca and Chiapas. At the time of writing, the total money donated was just over USD 473,500. Over 350 died in the earthquake, which registered 8.1 on the Richter scale. Many organizations, governments and charities from all over the world have donated money and time to help the people of Mexico rebuild their lives.

Many innovators and companies are working hard to help those effected by natural disasters. One company in India has produced a modular home that’s built to withstand earthquakes, and MyShake is an app that helps people prepare for earthquakes….(More)”.

The Arsenal of Exclusion and Inclusion

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Book by Tobias Armborst, Daniel D’Oca and Georgeen Theodore: “Urban History 101 teaches us that the built environment is not the product of invisible, uncontrollable market forces, but of human-made tools that could have been used differently (or not at all). The Arsenal of Exclusion & Inclusion is an encyclopedia of 202 tools–or what we call “weapons”–used by architects, planners, policy-makers, developers, real estate brokers, activists, and other urban actors in the United States use to restrict or increase access to urban space. The Arsenal of Exclusion & Inclusion inventories these weapons, examines how they have been used, and speculates about how they might be deployed (or retired) to make more open cities in which more people feel welcome in more spaces.

The Arsenal of Exclusion & Inclusion includes minor, seemingly benign weapons like no loitering signs and bouncers, but also big, headline-grabbing things like eminent domaon and city-county consolidation. It includes policies like expulsive zoning and annexation, but also practices like blockbusting, institutions like neighborhood associations, and physical things like bombs and those armrests that park designers put on benches to make sure homeless people don’t get too comfortable. It includes historical things that aren’t talked about too much any more (e.g., ugly laws), things that seem historical but aren’t (e.g., racial steering), and things that are brand new (e.g., aging improvement district).

With contributions from over fifty of the best minds in architecture, urban planning, urban history, and geography, The Arsenal of Exclusion & Inclusion offers a wide-ranging view of the policies, institutions, and social practices that shape our cities. It can be read as a historical account of the making of the modern American city, a toolbox of best practices for creating better, more just spaces, or as an introduction to the process of city-making in The United States….(More)”.

Is the First Amendment Obsolete?

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Essay by Tim Wu: “The First Amendment was a dead letter for much of American history. Unfortunately, there is reason to fear it is entering a new period of political irrelevance. We live in a golden age of efforts by governments and other actors to control speech, discredit and harass the press, and manipulate public debate. Yet as these efforts mount, and the expressive environment deteriorates, the First Amendment has been confined to a narrow and frequently irrelevant role. Hence the question — when it comes to political speech in the twenty-first century, is the First Amendment obsolete?

The most important change in the expressive environment can be boiled down to one idea: it is no longer speech itself that is scarce, but the attention of listeners. Emerging threats to public discourse take advantage of this change. As Zeynep Tufekci puts it, “censorship during the Internet era does not operate under the same logic [as] it did under the heyday of print or even broadcast television.” Instead of targeting speakers directly, it targets listeners or it undermines speakers indirectly. More precisely, emerging techniques of speech control depend on (1) a range of new punishments, like unleashing “troll armies” to abuse the press and other critics, and (2) “flooding” tactics (sometimes called “reverse censorship”) that distort or drown out disfavored speech through the creation and dissemination of fake news, the payment of fake commentators, and the deployment of propaganda robots. As journalist Peter Pomerantsev writes, these techniques employ “information . . . in weaponized terms, as a tool to confuse, blackmail, demoralize, subvert and paralyze.”

The First Amendment first came to life in the early twentieth century, when the main threat to the nation’s political speech environment was state suppression of dissidents. The jurisprudence of the First Amendment was shaped by that era. It presupposes an information-poor world, and it focuses exclusively on the protection of speakers from government, as if they were rare and delicate butterflies threatened by one terrible monster.

But today, speakers are more like moths — their supply is apparently endless. The massive decline in barriers to publishing makes information abundant, especially when speakers congregate on brightly lit matters of public controversy. The low costs of speaking have, paradoxically, made it easier to weaponize speech as a tool of speech control. The unfortunate truth is that cheap speech may be used to attack, harass, and silence as much as it is used to illuminate or debate. And the use of speech as a tool to suppress speech is, by its nature, something very challenging for the First Amendment to deal with. In the face of such challenges, First Amendment doctrine seems at best unprepared. It is a body of law that waits for a pamphleteer to be arrested before it will recognize a problem. Even worse, the doctrine may actually block efforts to deal with some of the problems described here….(More)”

Gamification, Participatory Democracy and Engaged Public(s)

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Gianluca Sgueo: “The use of game-design elements – a phenomenon known as ‘gamification’ – features prominently within on-going processes of innovation of governance. According to the research and advisory firm Gartner, 2,000 of the top public organizations worldwide have at least one gamified application and/or process in place. Examples of gamification in public governance include “Run that town” (ideated by the Australian Bureau of Statistics to raise citizens’ awareness of the national census), the “Red Balloon Challenge” (initiated by the United States’ Defence Advanced Research Project Agency to test systems for improving cooperation among soldiers, experts and diplomatic officers overseas), and “Manor Labs” (a web platform that awarded “Innobucks”, a type of virtual commodity, to residents of the City of Manor, in Texas, for proposing ideas related with urban development).
The purpose of this paper is threefold: first, to determine who is actually participating in public policy processes via gamification; second, to weigh the impact that the public(s) engaged by gamification has on democratic governance; third, to assess the societal environment within which gamification might flourish or establish plausibly….(More)”.