United Nations Global Principles for Information Integrity

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

United Nations: “Technological advances have revolutionized communications, connecting people on a previously unthinkable scale. They have supported communities in times of crisis, elevated marginalized voices and helped mobilize global movements for racial justice and gender equality.

Yet these same advances have enabled the spread of misinformation, disinformation and hate speech at an unprecedented volume, velocity and virality, risking the integrity of the information ecosystem.

New and escalating risks stemming from leaps in AI technologies have made strengthening information integrity one of the urgent tasks of our time.

This clear and present global threat demands coordinated international action.

The United Nations Global Principles for Information Integrity show us another future is possible…(More)”

Doing science backwards

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Stuart Ritchie: “…Usually, the process of publishing such a study would look like this: you run the study; you write it up as a paper; you submit it to a journal; the journal gets some other scientists to peer-review it; it gets published – or if it doesn’t, you either discard it, or send it off to a different journal and the whole process starts again.

That’s standard operating procedure. But it shouldn’t be. Think about the job of the peer-reviewer: when they start their work, they’re handed a full-fledged paper, reporting on a study and a statistical analysis that happened at some point in the past. It’s all now done and, if not fully dusted, then in a pretty final-looking form.

What can the reviewer do? They can check the analysis makes sense, sure; they can recommend new analyses are done; they can even, in extreme cases, make the original authors go off and collect some entirely new data in a further study – maybe the data the authors originally presented just aren’t convincing or don’t represent a proper test of the hypothesis.

Ronald Fisher described the study-first, review-later process in 1938:

To consult the statistician [or, in our case, peer-reviewer] after an experiment is finished is often merely to ask him to conduct a post mortem examination. He can perhaps say what the experiment died of.

Clearly this isn’t the optimal, most efficient way to do science. Why don’t we review the statistics and design of a study right at the beginning of the process, rather than at the end?

This is where Registered Reports come in. They’re a new (well, new-ish) way of publishing papers where, before you go to the lab, or wherever you’re collecting data, you write down your plan for your study and send it off for peer-review. The reviewers can then give you genuinely constructive criticism – you can literally construct your experiment differently depending on their suggestions. You build consensus—between you, the reviewers, and the journal editor—on the method of the study. And then, once everyone agrees on what a good study of this question would look like, you go off and do it. The key part is that, at this point, the journal agrees to publish your study, regardless of what the results might eventually look like…(More)”.

Water Shortages in Latin America: How Can Behavioral Science Help?

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Juan Roa Duarte: “Today in 2024, one of Latin America’s largest cities, Bogota, is facing significant challenges due to prolonged droughts exacerbated by El Niño. As reservoir levels plummet, local governments have implemented water rationing measures to manage the crisis. However, these rationing measures have remained unsuccessful after one month of implementation—in fact, water usage increased during the first week.1 But why? What solution can finally help solve this crisis?

In this article, we will explore how behavioral science can help Latin American cities mitigate their water shortages—and how, surprisingly, a method my hometown Bogota used back in the ‘90s can shed some light on this current issue. We’ll also explore some modern behavioral science strategies that can be used in parallel…(More)”

Open government, civic tech and digital platforms in Latin America: A governance study of Montevideo’s urban app ‘Por Mi Barrio’

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Carolina Aguerre and Carla Bonina: “Digital technologies have a recognised potential to build more efficient, credible, and innovative public institutions in Latin America. Despite progress, digital transformation in Latin American governments remains limited. In this work, we explore a peculiar yet largely understudied opportunity in the region: pursuing digital government transformation as a collaborative process between the government and civil society organisations. To do so, we draw from information systems research on digital government and platforms for development, complemented with governance theory from political science and conduct an interpretive in-depth case study of an urban reporting platform in Montevideo called ‘Por Mi Barrio’. The study reveals three mutually reinforced orders of governance in the trajectory of the project and explain how the collaboration unfolded over time: (i) a technical decision to use open platform architectures; (ii) the negotiation of formal and informal rules to make the project thrive and (iii) a shared, long-term ideology around the value of open technologies and technical sovereignty grounded in years of political history. Using a contextual explanation approach, our study helps to improve our understanding on the governance of collaborative digital government platforms in Latin America, with specific contributions to practice…(More)”.

The tools of global spycraft have changed

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

The Economist: “A few years ago intelligence analysts observed that internet-connected CCTV cameras in Taiwan and South Korea were inexplicably talking to vital parts of the Indian power grid. The strange connection turned out to be a deliberately circuitous route by which Chinese spies were communicating with malware they had previously buried deep inside crucial parts of the Indian grid (presumably to enable future sabotage). The analysts spotted it because they were scanning the internet to look for “command and control” (c2) nodes—such as cameras—that hackers use as stepping stones to their victims.

The attack was not revealed by an Indian or Western intelligence agency, but by Recorded Future, a firm in Somerville, Massachusetts. Christopher Ahlberg, its boss, claims the company has knowledge of more c2 nodes than anyone in the world. “We use that to bust Chinese and Russian intel operations constantly.” It also has billions of stolen log-in details found on the dark web (a hard-to-access part of the internet) and collects millions of images daily. “We know every UK company, every Chinese company, every Indian company,” says Mr Ahlberg.  Recorded Future has 1,700 clients in 75 countries, including 47 governments.

The Chinese intrusion and its discovery were a microcosm of modern intelligence. The internet, and devices connected to it, is everywhere, offering opportunities galore for surveillance, entrapment and covert operations. The entities monitoring it, and acting on it, are often private firms, not government agencies…(More)” See Special Issue on Watching the Watchers

Positive Pathways report

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Report by Michael Lawrence and Megan Shipman: “Polycrisis analysis reveals the complex and systemic nature of the world’s problems, but it can also help us pursue “positive pathways” to better futures. This report outlines the sorts of systems changes required to avoid, mitigate, and navigate through polycrisis given the dual nature of crises as harmful disasters and opportunities for transformation. It then examines the progression between three prominent approaches to systems change—leverage points, tipping points, and multi-systemic stability landscapes—by highlighting their advances and limitations. The report concludes that new tools like Cross-Impact Balance analysis can build on these approaches to help navigate through polycrisis by identifying stable and desirable multi-systemic equilibria…(More)”

Satisfaction with democracy has declined in recent years in high-income nations

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Pew Research Center: “..Since 2017, we’ve regularly asked people in 12 economically advanced democracies how satisfied they are with the state of their democracy. Overall, satisfaction declined in these countries between 2017 and 2019 before bouncing back in 2021, during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Trend chart over time showing that satisfaction with democracy across 12 high-income, democratic countries is down in recent years

Since 2021, however, people in these nations have become more frustrated with their democracies. A median of 49% across these 12 nations were satisfied with the way their democracy was working in 2021; today, just 36% hold this view. (The 2024 survey was conducted before the European Parliament elections in June.)

Trend chart over time showing declines in satisfaction with democracy since 2021 across 9 countries

Satisfaction is lower today than it was in 2021 in nine of the 12 nations where we have asked the question consistently. This includes six countries where satisfaction has dropped by double digits: Canada, Germany, Greece, South Korea, the United Kingdom and the United States.

Satisfaction has not increased in any of the 12 countries surveyed…(More)”

From Waves to Ecosystems: The Next Stage of Democratic Innovation

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Josh Lerner: “Anti-democratic movements are surging around the world, threatening to undermine elections and replace them with oligarchy. Pro-democracy movements mainly focus on defending elections, even though most people think that elections alone are inadequate. While elections dominate current thinking about democracy, the history and future of democracy is much broader. For over 5,000 years, people have built up competing waves of electoral, direct, deliberative, and participatory democracy. We are now seeing a transition, however, from waves to ecosystems. Rather than seeking one single solution to our ailing democracy, a new generation of democracy reformers is weaving together different democratic practices into balanced democratic ecosystems. This white paper provides a roadmap for this emerging next stage of democratic innovation. It reviews the limitations of elections, the different waves of democratic innovation and efforts to connect them, and key challenges and strategies for building healthy ecosystems of democracy…(More)”.

Government + research + philanthropy: How cross-sector partnerships can improve policy decisions and action

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Jenni Owen: “Researchers often lament that government decision-makers do not generate or use research evidence. People in government often lament that researchers are not responsive to government’s needs. Yet there is increasing enthusiasm in government, research, and philanthropy sectors for developing, investing in, and sustaining government-research partnerships that focus on government’s use of evidence. There is, however, scant guidance about how to do so. To help fill the gap, this essay addresses (1) Why government-research partnerships matter; (2) Barriers to developing government-research partnerships; (3) Strategies for addressing the barriers; (4) The role of philanthropy in government-research partnerships. The momentum to develop, invest in, and sustain cross-sector partnerships that advance government’s use of evidence is exciting. It is especially encouraging that there are feasible and actionable strategies for doing so…(More)”.

Oracles in the Machine

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Essay by Zora Che: “…In sociologist Charles Cooley’s theory of the “looking glass of self,” we understand ourselves through the perceptions of others. Online, models perceive us, responding to and reinforcing the versions of ourselves which they glean from our behaviors. They sense my finger lingering, my invisible gaze apparent by the gap of my movements. My understanding of my digital self and my digital reality becomes a feedback loop churned by models I cannot see. Moreover, the model only “sees” me as data that can be optimized for objectives that I cannot uncover. That objective is something closer to optimizing my time spent on the digital product than to holding my deepest needs; the latter perhaps was never a mathematical question to begin with.

Divination and algorithmic opacity both appear to bring us what we cannot see. Diviners see through what is obscure and beyond our comprehension: it may be incomprehensible pain and grief, vertiginous lack of control, and/or the unwarranted future. The opacity of divination comes from the limitations of our own knowledge. But the opacity of algorithms comes from both the algorithm itself and the socio-technical infrastructure that it was built around. Jenna Burrell writes of three layers of opacity in models: “(1) opacity as intentional corporate or state secrecy, (2) opacity as technical illiteracy, and (3) an opacity that arises from the characteristics of machine learning algorithms and the scale required to apply them usefully.” As consumers of models, we interact with the first and third layer of the opacity―that of platforms hiding models from us, and that of the gap between what the model is optimizing for and what may be explainable. The black-box model is an alluring oracle, interacting with us in inexplicable ways: no explanation for the daily laconic message Co-Star pushes to its users, no logic behind why you received this tarot reading while scrolling, no insight into the models behind these oracles and their objectives…(More)”.