social media

The government wants to study ‘social pollution’ on Twitter

Curated on October 21, 2014May 29, 2019 by Stefaan Verhulst

Ajit Pai in the Washington Post: “If you take to Twitter to express your views on a hot-button issue, does the government have an interest in deciding whether you are spreading “misinformation’’? If you tweet your support for a candidate in the November elections, should taxpayer money be used to monitor your speech and evaluate your “partisanship’’?

My guess is that most Americans would answer those questions with a resounding no. But the federal government seems to disagree. The National Science Foundation , a federal agency whose mission is to “promote the progress of science; to advance the national health, prosperity and welfare; and to secure the national defense,” is funding a project to collect and analyze your Twitter data.
The project is being developed by researchers at Indiana University, and its purported aim is to detect what they deem “social pollution” and to study what they call “social epidemics,” including how memes — ideas that spread throughout pop culture — propagate. What types of social pollution are they targeting? “Political smears,” so-called “astroturfing” and other forms of “misinformation.”
Named “Truthy,” after a term coined by TV host Stephen Colbert, the project claims to use a “sophisticated combination of text and data mining, social network analysis, and complex network models” to distinguish between memes that arise in an “organic manner” and those that are manipulated into being.

But there’s much more to the story. Focusing in particular on political speech, Truthy keeps track of which Twitter accounts are using hashtags such as #teaparty and #dems. It estimates users’ “partisanship.” It invites feedback on whether specific Twitter users, such as the Drudge Report, are “truthy” or “spamming.” And it evaluates whether accounts are expressing “positive” or “negative” sentiments toward other users or memes…”

This Headline Is One of Many Experiments on You

Curated on October 17, 2014August 3, 2018 by Stefaan Verhulst

Will Knight at MIT Technology Review: “On your way to this article, you probably took part in several experiments. You may have helped a search engine test a new way of displaying its results or an online retailer fine-tune an algorithm for recommending products. You may even have helped a news website decide which of two headlines readers are most likely to click on.
In other words, whether you realize it or not, the Web is already a gigantic, nonstop user-testing laboratory. Experimentation offers companies a powerful way to understand what customers want and how they are likely to behave, but it also seems that few people realize quite how much of it is going on.

This became clear in June, when Facebook experienced a backlash after publishing a study on the way negative emotions can spread across its network. The study, conducted by a team of internal researchers and academics, involved showing some people more negative posts than they would otherwise have seen, and then measuring how this affected their behavior. They in fact tended to post more negative content themselves, revealing a kind of “emotional contagion” (see “Facebook’s Emotion Study Is Just Its Latest Effort to Prod Users”).
Businesses have performed market research and other small experiments for years, but the practice has reached new levels of sophistication and complexity, largely because it is so easy to control the user experience on the Web, and then track how people’s behavior changes (see “What Facebook Knows”).
So companies with large numbers of users routinely tweak the information some of them see, and measure the resulting effect on their behavior—a practice known in the industry as A/B testing. Next time you see a credit card offer, for example, you might be one of a small group of users selected at random to see a new design. Or when you log onto Gmail, you may one of a chosen subset that gets to use a new feature developed by Google’s engineers.
“When doing things online, there’s a very large probability you’re going to be involved in multiple experiments every day,” Sinan Aral, a professor at MIT’s Sloan School of Management, said during a break at a conference for practitioners of large-scale user experiments last weekend in Cambridge, Massachusetts. “Look at Google, Amazon, eBay, Airbnb, Facebook—all of these businesses run hundreds of experiments, and they also account for a large proportion of Web traffic.”
At the Sloan conference, Ron Kohavi, general manager of the analysis and experimentation team at Microsoft, said each time someone uses the company’s search engine, Bing, he or she is probably involved in around 300 experiments. The insights that designers, engineers, and product managers can glean from these experiments can be worth millions of dollars in advertising revenue, Kohavi said…”

Data revolution: How the UN is visualizing the future

Curated on October 13, 2014August 15, 2018 by Stefaan Verhulst

Kate Krukiel at Microsoft Government: “…world leaders met in New York for the 69th session of the United Nations (UN) General Assembly. Progress toward achieving the eight Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) by the December 2015 target date—just 454 days away—was top of mind. So was the post-2015 agenda, which will pick up where the MDGs leave off. Ahead of the meetings, the UN Millennium Campaign asked Microsoft to build real-time visualizations of the progress on each goal—based on data spanning 21 targets, 60 indicators, and about 190 member countries. With the data visualizations we created (see them at http://www.mdgleaders.org/), UN and global leaders can decide where to focus in the next 15 months and, more importantly, where change needs to happen post-2015. Their experience offers three lessons for governments:

1. Data has a shelf life.

Since the MDGs were launched in 2000, the UN has relied on annual reports to assess its progress. But in August, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon called for a “data revolution for sustainable development”, which in effect makes real-time data visualization a requirement, not just for tracking the MDGs, but for everything from Ebola to climate change….

2.Governments need visualization tools.

Just as the UN is using data visualization to track its progress and plan for the future, you can use the technology to better understand the massive amounts of data you collect—on everything from water supply and food prices to child mortality and traffic jams. Data visualization technology makes it possible to pull insights from historical data, develop forecasts, and spot gaps in your data far easier than you can with raw data. As they say, a picture is worth a thousand words. To get a better idea of what’s possible, check out the MDG visualizations Microsoft created for the UN using our Power BI tool.

3.The private sector can help.

The UN called on the private sector to assist in determining the exact MDG progress and inspire ongoing global efforts. …

Follow the UN’s lead and join the #datarevolution now, if you haven’t already. It’s an opportunity to work across silos and political boundaries to address the world’s most pressing problems. It takes citizens’ points of view into account through What People Want. And it extends to the private sector, where expertise in using technology to create a sustainable future already exists. I encourage all government leaders to engage. To follow where the UN takes its revolution, watch for updates on the Data Revolution Group website or follow them on Twitter @data_rev….”

Organizing For Outcomes

Curated on October 13, 2014May 29, 2019 by Stefaan Verhulst

Code for America Summit YouTube: “Michael Flowers, former Chief Analytics Officer for New York City, explores the organizational opportunities and challenges of supporting an outcomes-driven approach to service delivery and problem-solving in government and what he’s learned from doing this in the NYC Mayor’s Office of Data Analytics…”

New Technology and the Prevention of Violence and Conflict

Curated on October 8, 2014August 15, 2018 by Stefaan Verhulst

Report edited by Francesco Mancini for the International Peace Institute: “In an era of unprecedented interconnectivity, this report explores the ways in which new technologies can assist international actors, governments, and civil society organizations to more effectively prevent violence and conflict. It examines the contributions that cell phones, social media, crowdsourcing, crisis mapping, blogging, and big data analytics can make to short-term efforts to forestall crises and to long-term initiatives to address the root causes of violence.
Five case studies assess the use of such tools in a variety of regions (Africa, Asia, Latin America) experiencing different types of violence (criminal violence, election-related violence, armed conflict, short-term crisis) in different political contexts (restrictive and collaborative governments).
Drawing on lessons and insights from across the cases, the authors outline a how-to guide for leveraging new technology in conflict-prevention efforts:
1. Examine all tools.
2. Consider the context.
3. Do no harm.
4. Integrate local input.
5. Help information flow horizontally.
6. Establish consensus regarding data use.
7. Foster partnerships for better results.”

Things Fall Apart: How Social Media Leads to a Less Stable World

Curated on October 7, 2014August 3, 2018 by Stefaan Verhulst

Commentary by Curtis Hougland at Knowledge@Wharton: “James Foley. David Haines. Steven Sotloff. The list of people beheaded by followers of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) keeps growing. The filming of these acts on video and distribution via social media platforms such as Twitter represent a geopolitical trend in which social media has become the new frontline for proxy wars across the globe. While social media does indeed advance connectivity and wealth among people, its proliferation at the same time results in a markedly less stable world.
That social media benefits mankind is irrefutable. I have been an evangelist for the power of new media for 20 years. However, technology in the form of globalized communication, transportation and supply chains conspires to make today’s world more complex. Events in any corner of the world now impact the rest of the globe quickly and sharply. Nations are being pulled apart along sectarian seams in Iraq, tribal divisions in Afghanistan, national interests in Ukraine and territorial fences in Gaza. These conflicts portend a quickening of global unrest, confirmed by Foreign Policy magazine’s map of civil protest. The ISIS videos are simply the exposed wire. I believe that over the next century, even great nations will Balkanize — break into smaller nations. One of the principal drivers of this Balkanization is social media Twitter .
Social media is a behavior, an expression of the innate human need to socialize and share experiences. Social media is not simply a set of technology channels and networks. Both the public and private sectors have underestimated the human imperative to behave socially. The evidence is now clear with more than 52% of the population living in cities and approximately 2 billion people active in social media globally. Some 96% of content emanates from individuals, not brands, media or governments — a volume that far exceeds participation in democratic elections.
Social media is not egalitarian, though. Despite the exponential growth of user-generated content, people prefer to congregate online around like-minded individuals. Rather than seek out new beliefs, people choose to reinforce their existing political opinions through their actions online. This is illustrated in Pew Internet’s 2014 study, “Mapping Twitter Topic Networks from Polarized Crowds to Community Clusters.” Individuals self-organize by affinity, and within affinity, by sensibility and personality. The ecosystem of social media is predicated on delivering more of what the user already likes. This, precisely, is the function of a Follow or Like. In this way, media coagulates rather than fragments online….”

We Want Privacy, but Can’t Stop Sharing

Curated on October 4, 2014May 29, 2019 by Stefaan Verhulst

Kate Murphy in the New York Times: “Well, that’s essentially the state of affairs on the Internet. There is no privacy. If those creepy targeted ads on Google hadn’t tipped you off, then surely Edward J. Snowden’s revelations, or, more recently, Jennifer Lawrence’s nude selfies, made your vulnerability to cybersnooping abundantly clear.

You need only read George Orwell’s “1984” or watch the film “Minority Report” to understand how surveillance is incompatible with a free society. And increasingly, people are coming to understand how their online data might be used against them. You might not get a job, a loan or a date because of an indiscreet tweet or if your address on Google Street View shows your brother-in-law’s clunker in the driveway. But less obvious is the psychic toll of the current data free-for-all.

“With all the focus on the legal aspects of privacy and the impact on global trade there’s been little discussion of why you want privacy and why it’s intrinsically important to you as an individual,” said Adam Joinson, professor of behavior change at the University of the West of England in Bristol, who coined the term “digital crowding” to describe excessive social contact and loss of personal space online.

Perhaps that’s because there is no agreement over what constitutes private information. It varies among cultures, genders and individuals. Moreover, it’s hard to argue for the value of privacy when people eagerly share so much achingly personal information on social media.

But the history of privacy (loosely defined as freedom from being observed) is one of status. Those who are institutionalized for criminal behavior or ill health, children and the impoverished have less privacy than those who are upstanding, healthy, mature and wealthy. Think of crowded tenements versus mansions behind high hedges.

“The implication is that if you don’t have it, you haven’t earned the right or aren’t capable or trustworthy,” said Christena Nippert-Eng, professor of sociology at the Illinois Institute of Technology in Chicago and author of “Islands of Privacy.”

So it’s not surprising that privacy research in both online and offline environments has shown that just the perception, let alone the reality, of being watched results in feelings of low self-esteem, depression and anxiety. Whether observed by a supervisor at work or Facebook friends, people are inclined to conform and demonstrate less individuality and creativity. Their performance of tasks suffers and they have elevated pulse rates and levels of stress hormones.

An analogy in the psychological literature is that privacy is like sleep….”