New book by Judith Donath: “Computers were first conceived as “thinking machines,” but in the twenty-first century they have become social machines, online places where people meet friends, play games, and collaborate on projects. In this book, Judith Donath argues persuasively that for social media to become truly sociable media, we must design interfaces that reflect how we understand and respond to the social world. People and their actions are still harder to perceive online than face to face: interfaces are clunky, and we have less sense of other people’s character and intentions, where they congregate, and what they do.
Donath presents new approaches to creating interfaces for social interaction. She addresses such topics as visualizing social landscapes, conversations, and networks; depicting identity with knowledge markers and interaction history; delineating public and private space; and bringing the online world’s open sociability into the physical world. Donath asks fundamental questions about how we want to live online and offers thought-provoking designs that explore radically new ways of interacting and communicating.”
Public service workers will have to become Jacks and Jills of all trades
Catherine Needham in the Guardian: “When Kent county council was looking to save money a couple of years ago, it hit upon the idea of merging the roles of library manager and registrar. Library managers were expected to register births and deaths on top of their existing duties, and registrars took on roles in libraries. One former library manager chose to leave the service as a result. It wasn’t, he said, what he signed up for: “I don’t associate the skills in running a library with those of a registrar. I don’t have the emotional skill to do it.”
Since the council was looking to cut staff numbers, it was probably not too troubled by his departure. But this does raise questions about how to support staff who are being asked to work well beyond their professional boundaries.
In our 21st Century Public Servant project at the University of Birmingham, we have found that this trend is evident across public services. We interviewed local government managers who said staff needed to think differently about their skills. As one put it: “We need to use people’s latent talent – if you are a librarian, for example, a key skill will be working with people from the local community. It’s about a different background mindset: ‘I am not just here to do a specific job, but to help the people of this town.'”
The skills of this generic public service worker include interpersonal skills (facilitation, empathy, political skills), analysing skills (sorting evidence, making judgements, offering critique and being creative), organisation (particularly for group work and collaboration) and communication skills (such as using social media and multimedia resources).
The growing interest in genericism seems to have two main drivers. The first, of course, is austerity. Cost cutting on an unprecedented scale in local authorities requires those staff that survive the waves of redundancies to be willing to take on new roles and work in multi-purpose settings. The second is the drive for whole-person approaches in which proper engagement with the public might require staff to cross traditional sector boundaries.
It is good that public service workers are being granted greater flexibility. But there are two main limitations to this move to greater genericism. The first is that multi-tasking in an era of cost cutting can look a lot like deprofessionalisation. Within social work, for example, concerns have been expressed about the downgrading of social work posts (by appointing brokers in their place, say) and the resulting loss of professional skills and knowledge.
A second limitation is that skills training continues to be sectoral, failing to catch up with the move to genericism….”
#BringBackOurGirls: Can Hashtag Activism Spur Social Change?
Nancy Ngo at TechChange: “In our modern times of media cycles fighting for our short attention spans, it is easy to ride the momentum of a highly visible campaign that can quickly fizzle out once another competing story emerges. Since the kidnappings of approximately 300 Nigerian girls by militant Islamist group Boko Haram last month, the international community has embraced the hashtag, “#BringBackOurGirls”, in a very vocal and visible social media campaign demanding action to rescue the Chibok girls. But one month since the mass kidnapping without the rescue of the girls, do we need to take a different approach? Will #BringBackOurGirls be just another campaign we forget about once the next celebrity scandal becomes breaking news?
#BringBackOurGirls goes global starting in Nigeria
Most of the #BringBackOurGirls campaign activity has been highly visible on Twitter, Facebook, and international media outlets. In this fascinating Twitter heat map created using the tool, CartoDB, featured in TIME Magazine, we can see a time-lapsed digital map of how the hashtag, “#BringBackOurGirls” spread globally, starting organically from within Nigeria in mid April.
The #BringBackOurGirls hashtag has been embraced widely by many public figures and has garnered wide support across the world. Michelle Obama, David Cameron, and Malala Yusafzai have posted images with the hashtag, along with celebrities such as Ellen Degeneres, Angelina Jolie, and Dwayne Johnson. To date, nearly 1 million people signed the Change.org petition. Countries including the USA, UK, China, Israel have pledged to join the rescue efforts, and other human rights campaigns have joined the #BringBackOurGirls Twitter momentum, as seen on this Hashtagify map.
Is #BringBackOurGirls repeating the mistakes of #KONY2012?
A great example of a past campaign where this happened was with the KONY2012 campaign, which brought some albeit short-lived urgency to addressing the child soldiers recruited by Joseph Kony, leader of the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA). Michael Poffenberger, who worked on that campaign, will join us a guest expert in TC110: Social Media for Social Change online course in June 2013 and compare it the current #BringBackOurGirls campaign. Many have drawn parallels to both campaigns and warned of the false optimism that hyped social media messages can bring when context is not fully considered and understood.
According to Lauren Wolfe of Foreign Policy magazine, “Understanding what has happened to the Nigerian girls and how to rescue them means beginning to face what has happened to hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of girls over years in global armed conflict.” To some critics, this hashtag trivializes the weaknesses of Nigerian democracy that have been exposed. Critics of using social media in advocacy campaigns have used the term “slacktivism” to describe the passive, minimal effort needed to participate in these movements. Others have cited such media waves being exploited for individual gain, as opposed to genuinely benefiting the girls. Florida State University Political Science professor, Will H. Moore, argues that this hashtag activism is not only hurting the larger cause of rescuing the kidnapped girls, but actually helping Boko Haram. Jumoke Balogun, Co-Founder of CompareAfrique, also highlights the limits of the #BringBackOurGirls hashtag impact.
Hashtag activism, alone, is not enough
With all this social media activity and international press, what actual progress has been made in rescuing the kidnapped girls? If the objective is raising awareness of the issue, yes, the hashtag has been successful. If the objective is to rescue the girls, we still have a long way to go, even if the hashtag campaign has been part of a multi-pronged approach to galvanize resources into action.
The bottom line: social media can be a powerful tool to bring visibility and awareness to a cause, but a hashtag alone is not enough to bring about social change. There are a myriad of resources that must be coordinated to effectively implement this rescue mission, which will only become more difficult as more time passes. However, prioritizing and shining a sustained light on the problem, instead getting distracted by competing media cycles on celebrities getting into petty fights, is the first step toward a solution…”
An App That Makes It Easy to Pester Your Congress Member
Klint Finley in Wired: “Joe Trippi pioneered the use of social media as a fundraising tool. As campaign manager for Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean in 2004, he started a trend that has reinvented that way politicians run for office. But he believes that many politicians are still missing out on the power of the internet once they’re elected.
“There’s been a lot of focus on winning campaigns, but there’s been less focus on governing,” Trippi says. “There are a lot of tools out there for campaigns to talk to voters, but not as many looking at how to give citizens and voters more impact on actual elected leaders in Congress.”
‘There’s been a lot of focus on winning campaigns, but there’s been less focus on governing.’
That’s why Trippi is working with an internet startup called Countable, which seeks to give citizens a greater voice in national politics. The company’s online service, which launches to the public today, gives you a simple and concise overview of the bills your national representatives are debating, and it lets you instantly send emails to these representatives, telling them how you would like them to vote.
Countable joins a growing wave of online tools that can improve the dialogue between citizens and representatives, including Madison, which lets you add your thoughts to both proposed bills and existing policies, and ThinkUp, a tool the White House uses to gauge popular sentiment through social media. The new service is most similar to Democracy OS, which lets governments and non-profits set up websites where people can discuss issues and vote on particular topics. But instead of building a platform that government operations must install on their own computer servers, Countable is offering a ready-made service.
In other words, you don’t have to wait for your representatives to adopt anything. All you have to do is sign up and start sending your thoughts to Congress….
One of the biggest challenges the company faces is providing enough information for citizens to develop informed opinions, without overwhelming them with details. “Fortunately, most pieces of legislation can be reasonably straight forward,” Myers says. “It’s when you get into complicated legislation with different political motivations associated with it that things get hard.”
For example, politicians often add amendments to bills that contain additional regulations or spending unrelated to the bill in question. Myers says that Countable will post updates to bills that have such riders. “Being able to call that out is actually a benefit in what we do,” he says.
The company is hiring writers from a variety of backgrounds, including politics and marketing, to ensure that the content is both accurate and understandable. Myers says the company strives to offer a balanced view of the pros and cons of each piece of legislation. “The editorial team represents multiple different political view points, but it will never be perfect,” he admits. To improve develop the editorial process, the company is also advised by former Reuters News publisher Andrew Goldner.
The other issue is e-mailing your representatives may not be that effective. And since Countable doesn’t do much to verify that you are who you say you are, a lobbyist or advocacy group could sign-up for multiple accounts and make it look like constituents feel more strongly about an issue than they actually do. But Myers says this isn’t much an issue, at least for now. “When talking with representatives, it’s not a major concern,” Myers says. “You can already e-mail your representatives without verifying your identity…”
Conceptualizing Open Data ecosystems: A timeline analysis of Open Data development in the UK
New paper by Tom Heath et al: “In this paper, we conceptualize Open Data ecosystems by analysing the major stakeholders in the UK. The conceptualization is based on a review of popular Open Data definitions and business ecosystem theories, which we applied to empirical data using a timeline analysis. Our work is informed by a combination of discourse analysis and in-depth interviews, undertaken during the summer of 2013. Drawing on the UK as a best practice example, we identify a set of structural business ecosystem properties: circular flow of resources, sustainability, demand that encourages supply, and dependence developing between suppliers, intermediaries, and users. However, significant gaps and shortcomings are found to remain. Most prominently, demand is not yet fully encouraging supply and actors have yet to experience fully mutual interdependence.”
The Emerging Science of Superspreaders (And How to Tell If You're One Of Them)
Emerging Technology From the arXiv: “Who are the most influential spreaders of information on a network? That’s a question that marketers, bloggers, news services and even governments would like answered. Not least because the answer could provide ways to promote products quickly, to boost the popularity of political parties above their rivals and to seed the rapid spread of news and opinions.
So it’s not surprising that network theorists have spent some time thinking about how best to identify these people and to check how the information they receive might spread around a network. Indeed, they’ve found a number of measures that spot so-called superspreaders, people who spread information, ideas or even disease more efficiently than anybody else.
But there’s a problem. Social networks are so complex that network scientists have never been able to test their ideas in the real world—it has always been too difficult to reconstruct the exact structure of Twitter or Facebook networks, for example. Instead, they’ve created models that mimic real networks in certain ways and tested their ideas on these instead.
But there is growing evidence that information does not spread through real networks in the same way as it does through these idealised ones. People tend to pass on information only when they are interested in a topic and when they are active, factors that are hard to take into account in a purely topological model of a network.
So the question of how to find the superspreaders remains open. That looks set to change thanks to the work of Sen Pei at Beihang University in Beijing and a few pals who have performed the first study of superspreaders on real networks.
These guys have studied the way information flows around various networks ranging from the Livejournal blogging network to the network of scientific publishing at the American Physical Society’s, as well as on subsets of the Twitter and Facebook networks. And they’ve discovered the key indicator that identifies superspreaders in these networks.
In the past, network scientists have developed a number of mathematical tests to measure the influence that individuals have on the spread of information through a network. For example, one measure is simply the number of connections a person has to other people in the network, a property known as their degree. The thinking is that the most highly connected people are the best at spreading information.
Another measure uses the famous PageRank algorithm that Google developed for ranking webpages. This works by ranking somebody more highly if they are connected to other highly ranked people.
Then there is ‘betweenness centrality’ , a measure of how many of the shortest paths across a network pass through a specific individual. The idea is that these people are more able to inject information into the network.
And finally there is a property of nodes in a network known as their k-core. This is determined by iteratively pruning the peripheries of a network to see what is left. The k-core is the step at which that node or person is pruned from the network. Obviously, the most highly connected survive this process the longest and have the highest k-core score..
The question that Sen and co set out to answer was which of these measures best picked out superspreaders of information in real networks.
They began with LiveJournal, a network of blogs in which individuals maintain lists of friends that represent social ties to other LiveJournal users. This network allows people to repost information from other blogs and to use a reference the links back to the original post. This allows Sen and co to recreate not only the network of social links between LiveJournal users but also the way in which information is spread between them.
Sen and co collected all of the blog posts from February 2010 to November 2011, a total of more than 56 million posts. Of these, some 600,000 contain links to other posts published by LiveJournal users.
The data reveals two important properties of information diffusion. First, only some 250,000 users are actively involved in spreading information. That’s a small fraction of the total.
More significantly, they found that information did not always diffuse across the social network. The found that information could spread between two LiveJournal users even though they have no social connection.
That’s probably because they find this information outside of the LiveJournal ecosystem, perhaps through web searches or via other networks. “Only 31.93% of the spreading posts can be attributed to the observable social links,” they say.
That’s in stark contrast to the assumptions behind many social network models. These simulate the way information flows by assuming that it travels directly through the network from one person to another, like a disease spread by physical contact.
The work of Sen and co suggests that influences outside the network are crucial too. In practice, information often spreads via several seemingly independent sources within the network at the same time. This has important implications for the way superspreaders can be spotted.
Sen and co say that a person’s degree– the number of other people he or her are connected to– is not as good a predictor of information diffusion as theorists have thought. “We find that the degree of the user is not a reliable predictor of influence in all circumstances,” they say.
What’s more, the Pagerank algorithm is often ineffective in this kind of network as well. “Contrary to common belief, although PageRank is effective in ranking web pages, there are many situations where it fails to locate superspreaders of information in reality,” they say….
Ref: arxiv.org/abs/1405.1790 : Searching For Superspreaders Of Information In Real-World Social Media”
Open Source Intelligence in the Twenty-First Century
New book by Christopher Hobbs, Matthew Moran and Daniel Salisbury: “This edited volume takes a fresh look at the subject of open source intelligence (OSINT), exploring both the opportunities and the challenges that this emergent area offers at the beginning of the twenty-first century. In particular, it explores the new methodologies and approaches that technological advances have engendered, while at the same time considering the risks associated with the pervasive nature of the Internet.
Drawing on a diverse range of experience and expertise, the book begins with a number of chapters devoted to exploring the uses and value of OSINT in a general sense, identifying patterns, trends and key areas of debate. The focus of the book then turns to the role and influence of OSINT in three key areas of international security – nuclear proliferation; humanitarian crises; and terrorism. The book offers a timely discussion on the merits and failings of OSINT and provides readers with an insight into the latest and most original research being conducted in this area.”
Table of contents:
PART I: OPEN SOURCE INTELLIGENCE: NEW METHODS AND APPROACHES
1. Exploring the Role and Value of Open Source Intelligence; Stevyn Gibson
2. Towards the discipline of Social Media Intelligence ‘ SOCMINT’; David Omand, Carl Miller and Jamie Bartlett
3. The Impact of OSINT on Cyber-Security; Alastair Paterson and James Chappell
PART II: OSINT AND PROLIFERATION
4. Armchair Safeguards: The Role of OSINT in Proliferation Analysis; Christopher Hobbs and Matthew Moran
5. OSINT and Proliferation Procurement: Combating Illicit Trade; Daniel Salisbury
PART III: OSINT and Humanitarian Crises
6. Positive and Negative Noise in Humanitarian Action: The OSINT Dimension; Randolph Kent
7. Human Security Intelligence: Towards a Comprehensive Understanding of Humanitarian Crises; Fred Bruls and Walter Dorn
PART IV:OSINT and Counter-terrorism
8. Detecting Events from Twitter: Situational Awareness in the Age of Social Media; Simon Wibberley and Carl Miller
9. Jihad Online: What Militant Groups Say about Themselves and What it Means for Counterterrorism Strategy; John Amble
Conclusion; Christopher Hobbs, Matthew Moran and Daniel Salisbury
Rethinking Personal Data: A New Lens for Strengthening Trust
New report from the World Economic Forum: “As we look at the dynamic change shaping today’s data-driven world, one thing is becoming increasingly clear. We really do not know that much about it. Polarized along competing but fundamental principles, the global dialogue on personal data is inchoate and pulled in a variety of directions. It is complicated, conflated and often fueled by emotional reactions more than informed understandings.
The World Economic Forum’s global dialogue on personal data seeks to cut through this complexity. A multi-year initiative with global insights from the highest levels of leadership from industry, governments, civil society and academia, this work aims to articulate an ascendant vision of the value a balanced and human-centred personal data ecosystem can create.
Yet despite these aspirations, there is a crisis in trust. Concerns are voiced from a variety of viewpoints at a variety of scales. Industry, government and civil society are all uncertain on how to create a personal data ecosystem that is adaptive, reliable, trustworthy and fair.
The shared anxieties stem from the overwhelming challenge of transitioning into a hyperconnected world. The growth of data, the sophistication of ubiquitous computing and the borderless flow of data are all outstripping the ability to effectively govern on a global basis. We need the means to effectively uphold fundamental principles in ways fit for today’s world.
Yet despite the size and scope of the complexity, it cannot become a reason for inaction. The need for pragmatic and scalable approaches which strengthen transparency, accountability and the empowerment of individuals has become a global priority.
Tools are needed to answer fundamental questions: Who has the data? Where is the data? What is being done with it? All of these uncertainties need to be addressed for meaningful progress to occur.
Objectives need to be set. The benefits and harms for using personal data need be more precisely defined. The ambiguity surrounding privacy needs to be demystified and placed into a real-world context.
Individuals need to be meaningfully empowered. Better engagement over how data is used by third parties is one opportunity for strengthening trust. Supporting the ability for individuals to use personal data for their own purposes is another area for innovation and growth. But combined, the overall lack of engagement is undermining trust.
Collaboration is essential. The need for interdisciplinary collaboration between technologists, business leaders, social scientists, economists and policy-makers is vital. The complexities for delivering a sustainable and balanced personal data ecosystem require that these multifaceted perspectives are all taken into consideration.
With a new lens for using personal data, progress can occur.
Figure 1: A new lens for strengthening trust
Source: World Economic Forum
Obama Signs Nation's First 'Open Data' Law
William Welsh in Information Week: “President Barack Obama enacted the nation’s first open data law, signing into law on May 9 bipartisan legislation that requires federal agencies to publish their spending data in a standardized, machine-readable format that the public can access through USASpending.gov.
The Digital Accountability and Transparency Act of 2014 (S. 994) amends the eight-year-old Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act to make available to the public specific classes of federal agency spending data “with more specificity and at a deeper level than is currently reported,” a White House statement said….
Advocacy groups applauded the bipartisan legislation, which is being heralded the nation’s first open data law and furnishes a legislative mandate for Obama’s one-year-old Open Data Policy.
“The DATA Act will unlock a new public resource that innovators, watchdogs, and citizens can mine for valuable and unprecedented insight into federal spending,” said Hudson Hollister, executive director of the Data Transparency Coalition. “America’s tech sector already has the tools to deliver reliable, standardized, open data. [The] historic victory will put our nation’s open data pioneers to work for the common good.”
The DATA Act requires agencies to establish government-wide standards for financial data, adopt accounting approaches developed by the Recovery Act’s Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board (RATB), and streamline agency reporting requirements.
The DATA Act empowers the Secretary of the Treasury to establish a data analytics center, which is modeled on the successful Recovery Operations Center. The new center will support inspectors general and law enforcement agencies in criminal and other investigations, as well as agency program offices in the prevention of improper payments. Assets of the RATB related to the Recovery Operations Center would transfer to the Treasury Department when the board’s authorization expires.
The treasury secretary and the Director of the White House’s Office of Management and Budget are jointly tasked with establishing the standards required to achieve the goals and objectives of the new statute.
To ensure that agencies comply with the reporting requirements, agency inspectors general will report on the quality and accuracy of the financial data provided to USASpending.gov. The Government Accountability Office also will report on the data quality and accuracy and create a Government-wide assessment of the financial data reported…”
Believe the hype: Big data can have a big social impact
Annika Small at the Guardian: “Given all the hype around so called big data at the moment, it would be easy to dismiss it as nothing more than the latest technology buzzword. This would be a mistake, given that the application and interpretation of huge – often publicly available – data sets is already supporting new models of creativity, innovation and engagement.
To date, stories of big data’s progress and successes have tended to come from government and the private sector, but we’ve heard little about its relevance to social organisations. Yet big data can fuel big social change.
It’s already playing a vital role in the charitable sector. Some social organisations are using existing open government data to better target their services, to improve advocacy and fundraising, and to support knowledge sharing and collaboration between different charities and agencies. Crowdsourcing of open data also offers a new way for not-for-profits to gather intelligence, and there is a wide range of freely available online tools to help them analyse the information.
However, realising the potential of big and open data presents a number of technical and organisational challenges for social organisations. Many don’t have the required skills, awareness and investment to turn big data to their advantage. They also tend to lack the access to examples that might help demystify the technicalities and focus on achievable results.
Overcoming these challenges can be surprisingly simple: Keyfund, for example, gained insight into what made for a successful application to their scheme through using a free, online tool to create word clouds out of all the text in their application forms. Many social organisations could use this same technique to better understand the large volume of unstructured text that they accumulate – in doing so, they would be “doing big data” (albeit in a small way). At the other end of the scale, Global Giving has developed its own sophisticated set of analytical tools to better understand the 57,000+ “stories” gathered from its network.
Innovation often happens when different disciplines collide and it’s becoming apparent that most value – certainly most social value – is likely to be created at the intersection of government, private and social sector data. That could be the combination of data from different sectors, or better “data collaboration” within sectors.
The Housing Association Charitable Trust (HACT) has produced two original tools that demonstrate this. Its Community Insight tool combines data from different sectors, allowing housing providers easily to match information about their stock to a large store of well-maintained open government figures. Meanwhile, its Housing Big Data programme is building a huge dataset by combining stats from 16 different housing providers across the UK. While Community Insight allows each organisation to gain better individual understanding of their communities (measuring well-being and deprivation levels, tracking changes over time, identifying hotspots of acute need), Housing Big Data is making progress towards a much richer network of understanding, providing a foundation for the sector to collaboratively identify challenges and quantify the impact of their interventions.
Alongside this specific initiative from HACT, it’s also exciting to see programmes such as 360giving, which forge connections between a range of private and social enterprises, and lays foundations for UK social investors to be a significant source of information over the next decade. Certainly, The Big Lottery Fund’s publication of open data late last year is a milestone which also highlights how far we have to travel as a sector before we are truly “data-rich”.
At Nominet Trust, we have produced the Social Tech Guide to demonstrate the scale and diversity of social value being generated internationally – much of which is achieved through harnessing the power of big data. From Knewton creating personally tailored learning programmes, to Cellslider using the power of the crowd to advance cancer research, there is no shortage of inspiration. The UN’s Global Pulse programme is another great example, with its focus on how we can combine private and public sources to pin down the size and shape of a social challenge, and calibrate our collective response.
These examples of data-driven social change demonstrate the huge opportunities for social enterprises to harness technology to generate insights, to drive more effective action and to fuel social change. If we are to realise this potential, we need to continue to stretch ourselves as social enterprises and social investors.”