Why China Can’t Export Its Model of Surveillance

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Minxin Pei: “t’s Not the Tech That Empowers Big Brother in Beijing—It’s the Informants…Over the past two decades, Chinese leaders have built a high-tech surveillance system of seemingly extraordinary sophistication. Facial recognition software, Internet monitoring, and ubiquitous video cameras give the impression that the ruling Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has finally accomplished the dictator’s dream of building a surveillance state like the one imagined in George Orwell’s 1984. 

A high-tech surveillance network now blankets the entire country, and the potency of this system was on full display in November 2022, when nationwide protests against China’s COVID lockdown shocked the party. Although the protesters were careful to conceal their faces with masks and hats, the police used mobile-phone location data to track them down. Mass arrests followed.

Beijing’s surveillance state is not only a technological feat. It also relies on a highly labor-intensive organization. Over the past eight decades, the CCP has constructed a vast network of millions of informers and spies whose often unpaid work has been critical to the regime’s survival. It is these men and women, more than cameras or artificial intelligence, that have allowed Beijing to suppress dissent. Without a network of this size, the system could not function. This means that, despite the party’s best efforts, the Chinese security apparatus is impossible to export…(More)”.

Governable Spaces: Democratic Design for Online Life

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Book by Nathan Schneider: “When was the last time you participated in an election for a Facebook group or sat on a jury for a dispute in a subreddit? Platforms nudge users to tolerate nearly all-powerful admins, moderators, and “benevolent dictators for life.” In Governable Spaces, Nathan Schneider argues that the internet has been plagued by a phenomenon he calls “implicit feudalism”: a bias, both cultural and technical, for building communities as fiefdoms. The consequences of this arrangement matter far beyond online spaces themselves, as feudal defaults train us to give up on our communities’ democratic potential, inclining us to be more tolerant of autocratic tech CEOs and authoritarian tendencies among politicians. But online spaces could be sites of a creative, radical, and democratic renaissance. Using media archaeology, political theory, and participant observation, Schneider shows how the internet can learn from governance legacies of the past to become a more democratic medium, responsive and inventive unlike anything that has come before…(More)”.

Winning the Battle of Ideas: Exposing Global Authoritarian Narratives and Revitalizing Democratic Principles

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Report by Joseph Siegle: “Democracies are engaged in an ideological competition with autocracies that could reshape the global order. Narratives are a potent, asymmetric instrument of power, as they reframe events in a way that conforms to and propagates a particular worldview. Over the past decade and a half, autocracies like Russia and China have led the effort to disseminate authoritarian narratives globally, seeking to normalize authoritarianism as an equally viable and legitimate form of government. How do authoritarian narratives reframe an unappealing value proposition, with the aim of making the democratic path seem less attractive and offering authoritarianism as an alternative model? How can democracies reemphasize their core principles and remind audiences of democracy’s moral, developmental, and security advantages?…(More)”.

In the long run: the future as a political idea

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Book by Jonathan White: “Democracy is future-oriented and self-correcting: today’s problems can be solved, we are told, in tomorrow’s elections. But the biggest issues facing the modern world – from climate collapse and pandemics to recession and world war – each apparently bring us to the edge of the irreversible. What happens to democracy when the future seems no longer open?

In this eye-opening history of ideas, Jonathan White investigates how politics has long been directed by shifting visions of the future, from the birth of ideologies in the nineteenth century to Cold War secrecy and the excesses of the neoliberal age.

As an inescapable sense of disaster defines our politics, White argues that a political commitment to the long-term may be the best way to safeguard democracy. Wide in scope and sharply observed, In the Long Run is a history of the future that urges us to make tomorrow new again…(More)”.

Regulating AI Deepfakes and Synthetic Media in the Political Arena

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Report by Daniel Weiner and Lawrence Norden: “…Part I of this resource defines the terms deepfake, synthetic media, and manipulated media in more detail. Part II sets forth some necessary considerations for policymakers, specifically:

  • The most plausible rationales for regulating deepfakes and other manipulated media when used in the political arena. In general, the necessity of promoting an informed electorate and the need to safeguard the overall integrity of the electoral process are among the most compelling rationales for regulating manipulated media in the political space.
  • The types of communications that should be regulated. Regulations should reach synthetic images and audio as well as video. Policymakers should focus on curbing or otherwise limiting depictions of events or statements that did not actually occur, especially those appearing in paid campaign ads and certain other categories of paid advertising or otherwise widely disseminated communications. All new rules should have clear carve-outs for parody, news media stories, and potentially other types of protected speech.
  • How such media should be regulated. Transparency rules — for example, rules requiring a manipulated image or audio recording to be clearly labeled as artificial and not a portrayal of real events — will usually be easiest to defend in court. Transparency will not always be enough, however; lawmakers should also consider outright bans of certain categories of manipulated media, such as deceptive audio and visual material seeking to mislead people about the time, place, and manner of voting.
  • Who regulations should target. Both bans and less burdensome transparency requirements should primarily target those who create or disseminate deceptive media, although regulation of the platforms used to transmit deepfakes may also make sense…(More)”.

Avoiding the News

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Book by Benjamin Toff, Ruth Palmer, and Rasmus Kleis Nielsen: “A small but growing number of people in many countries consistently avoid the news. They feel they do not have time for it, believe it is not worth the effort, find it irrelevant or emotionally draining, or do not trust the media, among other reasons. Why and how do people circumvent news? Which groups are more and less reluctant to follow the news? In what ways is news avoidance a problem—for individuals, for the news industry, for society—and how can it be addressed?

This groundbreaking book explains why and how so many people consume little or no news despite unprecedented abundance and ease of access. Drawing on interviews in Spain, the United Kingdom, and the United States as well as extensive survey data, Avoiding the News examines how people who tune out traditional media get information and explores their “folk theories” about how news organizations work. The authors argue that news avoidance is about not only content but also identity, ideologies, and infrastructures: who people are, what they believe, and how news does or does not fit into their everyday lives. Because news avoidance is most common among disadvantaged groups, it threatens to exacerbate existing inequalities by tilting mainstream journalism even further toward privileged audiences. Ultimately, this book shows, persuading news-averse audiences of the value of journalism is not simply a matter of adjusting coverage but requires a deeper, more empathetic understanding of people’s relationships with news across social, political, and technological boundaries…(More)”.

Facts over fiction: Why we must protect evidence-based knowledge if we value democracy

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Ben Feringa and Paul Nurse: “Central to human progress are three interconnected pillars. The first is pursuit of knowledge, a major component of which is the expansion of the frontiers of learning and understanding – something often achieved through science, driven by the innate curiosity of scientists.

The second pillar of progress is the need for stable democracies where people and ideas can mix freely. It is this free exchange of diverse perspectives that fuels the democratic process, ensuring policies are shaped by a multitude of voices and evidence, leading to informed decision-making that benefits all of society.

Such freedom of speech and expression also serves as the bedrock for scientific inquiry, allowing researchers to challenge prevailing notions without fear, fostering discovery, applications and innovation.

The third pillar is a fact-based worldview. While political parties might disagree on policy, for democracy to work well all of them should support and protect a perspective that is grounded in reliable facts, which are needed to generate reliable policies that can drive human progress….(More)”.

What It Takes to Build Democratic Institutions

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Daron Acemoglu: “Chile’s failure to draft a new constitution that enjoys widespread support from voters is the predictable result of allowing partisans and ideologues to lead the process. Democratic institutions are built by delivering what ordinary voters expect and demand from government, as the history of Nordic social democracy shows…

There are plenty of good models around to help both developing and industrialized countries build better democratic institutions. But with its abortive attempts to draft a new constitution, Chile is offering a lesson in what to avoid.

Though it is one of the richest countries in Latin America, Chile is still suffering from the legacy of General Augusto Pinochet’s brutal dictatorship and historic inequalities. The country has made some progress in building democratic institutions since the 1988 plebiscite that began the transition from authoritarianism, and education and social programs have reduced income inequality. But major problems remain. There are deep inequalities not just in income, but also in access to government services, high-quality educational resources, and labor-market opportunities. Moreover, Chile still has the constitution that Pinochet imposed in 1980.

Yet while it seems natural to start anew, Chile has gone about it the wrong way. Following a 2020 referendum that showed overwhelming support for drafting a new constitution, it entrusted the process to a convention of elected delegates. But only 43% of voters turned out for the 2021 election to fill the convention, and many of the candidates were from far-left circles with strong ideological commitments to draft a constitution that would crack down on business and establish myriad new rights for different communities. When the resulting document was put to a vote, 62% of Chileans rejected it…(More)”

Forget technology — politicians pose the gravest misinformation threat

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Rasmus Nielsen: “This is set to be a big election year, including in India, Mexico, the US, and probably the UK. People will rightly be on their guard for misinformation, but much of the policy discussion on the topic ignores the most important source: members of the political elite.

As a social scientist working on political communication, I have spent years in these debates — which continue to be remarkably disconnected from what we know from research. Academic findings repeatedly underline the actual impact of politics, while policy documents focus persistently on the possible impact of new technologies.

Most recently, Britain’s National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC) has warned of how “AI-created hyper-realistic bots will make the spread of disinformation easier and the manipulation of media for use in deepfake campaigns will likely become more advanced”. This is similar to warnings from many other public authorities, which ignore the misinformation from the most senior levels of domestic politics. In the US, the Washington Post stopped counting after documenting at least 30,573 false or misleading claims made by Donald Trump as president. In the UK, the non-profit FullFact has reported that as many as 50 MPs — including two prime ministers, cabinet ministers and shadow cabinet ministers — failed to correct false, unevidenced or misleading claims in 2022 alone, despite repeated calls to do so.

These are actual problems of misinformation, and the phenomenon is not new. Both George W Bush and Barack Obama’s administrations obfuscated on Afghanistan. Bush’s government and that of his UK counterpart Tony Blair advanced false and misleading claims in the run-up to the Iraq war. Prominent politicians have, over the years, denied the reality of human-induced climate change, proposed quack remedies for Covid-19, and so much more. These are examples of misinformation, and, at their most egregious, of disinformation — defined as spreading false or misleading information for political advantage or profit.

This basic point is strikingly absent from many policy documents — the NCSC report, for example, has nothing to say about domestic politics. It is not alone. Take the US Surgeon General’s 2021 advisory on confronting health misinformation which calls for a “whole-of-society” approach — and yet contains nothing on politicians and curiously omits the many misleading claims made by the sitting president during the pandemic, including touting hydroxychloroquine as a potential treatment…(More)”.

Conversing with Congress: An Experiment in AI-Enabled Communication

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Blog by Beth Noveck: “Each Member of the US House Representative speaks for 747,184 people – a staggering increase from 50 years ago. In the Senate, this disproportion is even more pronounced: on average each Senator represents 1.6 million more constituents than her predecessor a generation ago. That’s a lower level of representation than any other industrialized democracy.  

As the population grows (over 60% since 1970), so, too, does constituent communications. 

But that communication is not working well. According to the Congressional Management Foundation, this overwhelming communication volume leads to dissatisfaction among voters who feel their views are not adequately considered by their representatives….A pioneering and important new study published in Government Information Quarterly entitled “Can AI communication tools increase legislative responsiveness and trust in democratic institutions?” (Volume 40, Issue 3, June 2023, 101829) from two Cornell researchers is shedding new light on the practical potential for AI to create more meaningful constituent communication….Depending on the treatment group they either were or were not told when replies were AI-drafted.

Their findings are telling. Standard, generic responses fare poorly in gaining trust. In contrast, all AI-assisted responses, particularly those with human involvement, significantly boost trust. “Legislative correspondence generated by AI with human oversight may be received favorably.” 

Screenshot 2023 12 12 at 4.21.16 Pm

While the study found AI-assisted replies to be more trustworthy, it also explored how the quality of these replies impacts perception. When they conducted this study, ChatGPT was still in its infancy and more prone to linguistic hallucinations so they also tested in a second experiment how people perceived higher, more relevant and responsive replies against lower quality, irrelevant replies drafted with AI…(More)”.