Book by Antón Barba-Kay: “There no longer seems any point to criticizing the internet. We indulge in the latest doom-mongering about the evils of social media-on social media. We scroll through routine complaints about the deterioration of our attention spans. We resign ourselves to hating the internet even as we spend much of our waking lives with it. Yet our unthinking surrender to its effects-to the ways it recasts our aims and desires-is itself digital technology’s most powerful achievement. A Web of Our Own Making examines how online practices are reshaping our lives outside our notice. Barba-Kay argues that digital technology is a ‘natural technology’-a technology so intuitive as to conceal the extent to which it transforms our attention. He shows how and why this technology is reconfiguring knowledge, culture, politics, aesthetics, and theology. The digital revolution is primarily taking place not in Silicon Valley but within each of us…(More)”.
Changing Facebook’s algorithm won’t fix polarization, new study finds
Article by Naomi Nix, Carolyn Y. Johnson, and Cat Zakrzewski: “For years, regulators and activists have worried that social media companies’ algorithms were dividing the United States with politically toxic posts and conspiracies. The concern was so widespread that in 2020, Meta flung open troves of internal data for university academics to study how Facebook and Instagram would affect the upcoming presidential election.
The first results of that research show that the company’s platforms play a critical role in funneling users to partisan information with which they are likely to agree. But the results cast doubt on assumptions that the strategies Meta could use to discourage virality and engagement on its social networks would substantially affect people’s political beliefs.
“Algorithms are extremely influential in terms of what people see on the platform, and in terms of shaping their on-platform experience,” Joshua Tucker, co-director of the Center for Social Media and Politics at New York University and one of the leaders on the research project, said in an interview.
“Despite the fact that we find this big impact in people’s on-platform experience, we find very little impact in changes to people’s attitudes about politics and even people’s self-reported participation around politics.”
The first four studies, which were released on Thursday in the journals Science and Nature, are the result of a unique partnership between university researchers and Meta’s own analysts to study how social media affects political polarization and people’s understanding and opinions about news, government and democracy. The researchers, who relied on Meta for data and the ability to run experiments, analyzed those issues during the run-up to the 2020 election. The studies were peer-reviewed before publication, a standard procedure in science in which papers are sent out to other experts in the field who assess the work’s merit.
As part of the project, researchers altered the feeds of thousands of people using Facebook and Instagram in fall of 2020 to see if that could change political beliefs, knowledge or polarization by exposing them to different information than they might normally have received. The researchers generally concluded that such changes had little impact.
The collaboration, which is expected to be released over a dozen studies, also will examine data collected after the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, Tucker said…(More)”.
Public Policy and Technological Transformations in Africa
Book edited by Gedion Onyango: “This book examines the links between public policy and Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR) technological developments in Africa. It broadly assesses three key areas – policy entrepreneurship, policy tools and citizen participation – in order to better understand the interfaces between public policy and technological transformations in African countries. The book presents incisive case studies on topics including AI policies, mobile money, e-budgeting, digital economy, digital agriculture and digital ethical dilemmas in order to illuminate technological proliferation in African policy systems. Its analysis considers the broader contexts of African state politics and governance. It will appeal to students, instructors, researchers and practitioners interested in governance and digital transformations in developing countries…(More)”.
Journalism Is a Public Good and Should Be Publicly Funded
Essay by Patrick Walters: “News deserts” have proliferated across the U.S. Half of the nation’s more than 3,140 counties now have only one newspaper—and nearly 200 of them have no paper at all. Of the publications that survive, researchers have found many are “ghosts” of their former selves.
Journalism has problems nationally: CNN announced hundreds of layoffs at the end of 2022, and National Geographic laid off the last of its staff writers this June. In the latter month the Los Angeles Times cut 13 percent of its newsroom staff. But the crisis is even more acute at the local level, with jobs in local news plunging from 71,000 in 2008 to 31,000 in 2020. Closures and cutbacks often leave people without reliable sources that can provide them with what the American Press Institute has described as “the information they need to make the best possible decisions about their daily lives.”
Americans need to understand that journalism is a vital public good—one that, like roads, bridges and schools, is worthy of taxpayer support. We are already seeing the disastrous effects of otherwise allowing news to disintegrate in the free market: namely, a steady supply of misinformation, often masquerading as legitimate news, and too many communities left without a quality source of local news. Former New York Times public editor Margaret Sullivan has a called this a “crisis of American democracy.”
The terms “crisis” and “collapse” have become nearly ubiquitous in the past decade when describing the state of American journalism, which has been based on a for-profit commercial model since the rise of the “penny press” in the 1830s. Now that commercial model has collapsed amid the near disappearance of print advertising. Digital ads have not come close to closing the gap because Google and other platforms have “hoovered up everything,” as Emily Bell, founding director of the Tow Center for Journalism at Columbia University, told the Nieman Journalism Lab in a 2018 interview. In June the newspaper chain Gannett sued Google’s parent company, alleging it has created an advertising monopoly that has devastated the news industry.
Other journalism models—including nonprofits such as MinnPost, collaborative efforts such Broke in Philly and citizen journalism—have had some success in fulfilling what Lewis Friedland of the University of Wisconsin–Madison called “critical community information needs” in a chapter of the 2016 book The Communication Crisis in America, and How to Fix It. Friedland classified those needs as falling in eight areas: emergencies and risks, health and welfare, education, transportation, economic opportunities, the environment, civic information and political information. Nevertheless, these models have proven incapable of fully filling the void, as shown by the dearth of quality information during the early years of the COVID pandemic. Scholar Michelle Ferrier and others have worked to bring attention to how news deserts leave many rural and urban areas “impoverished by the lack of fresh, daily local news and information,” as Ferrier wrote in a 2018 article. A recent study also found evidence that U.S. judicial districts with lower newspaper circulation were likely to see fewer public corruption prosecutions.
A growing chorus of voices is now calling for government-funded journalism, a model that many in the profession have long seen as problematic…(More)”.
Leveraging Social Media Data for Emergency Preparedness and Response
Report by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine: “Most state departments of transportation (DOTs) use social media to broadcast information and monitor emergencies, but few rely heavily on social media data. The most common barriers to using social media for emergencies are personnel availability and training, privacy issues, and data reliability.
NCHRP Synthesis 610: Leveraging Social Media Data for Emergency Preparedness and Response, from TRB’s National Cooperative Highway Research Program, documents state DOT practices that leverage social media data for emergency preparedness, response, and recovery…(More)”.
Russia Is Trying to Leave the Internet and Build Its Own
Article by Timmy Broderick: “Last week the Russian government tried to disconnect its Internet infrastructure from the larger global Web. This test of Russia’s “sovereign Internet” seemingly failed, causing outages that suggest the system is not ready for practical use.
“Sovereign Internet is not really a whole different Internet; it is more like a project that uses various tools,” says Natalia Krapiva, tech-legal counsel at the international digital-rights nonprofit Access Now. “It involves technology like deep packet inspection, which allows major filtering of the Internet and gives governments the ability to throttle certain connections and websites.” By cutting off access to sites such as Western social media platforms, the Russian government could restrict residents from viewing any source of information other than the country’s accepted channels of influence.
This method of curtailing digital freedom goes beyond Russia: other countries are also attempting to develop their own nationwide Internet. And if successful, these endeavors could fragment the World Wide Web. Scientific American talked with Krapiva over Zoom about the implications of this latest test, the motive behind Russia’s actions and the ways the push for a sovereign Internet affect the digital rights of all users…(More)”.
To Save Society from Digital Tech, Enable Scrutiny of How Policies Are Implemented
Article by Ido Sivan-Sevilla: “…there is little discussion about how to create accountability when implementing tech policies. Decades of research exploring policy implementation across diverse areas consistently shows how successful implementation allows policies to be adapted and involves crucial bargaining. But this is rarely understood in the tech sector. For tech policies to work, those responsible for enforcement and compliance should be overseen and held to account. Otherwise, as history shows, tech policies will struggle to fulfill the intentions of their policymakers.
Scrutiny is required for three types of actors. First are regulators, who convert promising tech laws into enforcement practices but are often ill-equipped for their mission. My recent research found that across Europe, the rigor and methods of national privacy regulators tasked with enforcing the European Union’s GDPR vary greatly. The French data protection authority, for instance, proactively monitors for privacy violations and strictly sanctions companies that overstep; in contrast, Bulgarian authorities monitor passively and are hesitant to act. Reflecting on the first five years of the GDPR, Max Schrems, the chair of privacy watchdog NOYB, found authorities and courts reluctant to enforce the law, and companies free to take advantage: “It often feels like there is more energy spent in undermining the GDPR than in complying with it.” Variations in resources and technical expertise among regulators create regulatory arbitrage that the regulated eagerly exploit.
Tech companies are the second type of actor requiring scrutiny. Service providers such as Goolge, Meta, and Twitter, along with lesser-known technology companies, mediate digital services for billions around the world but enjoy considerable latitude on how and whether they comply with tech policies. Civil society groups, for instance, uncovered how Meta was trying to bypass the GDPR and use personal information for advertising…(More)”.
Design in the Civic Space: Generating Impact in City Government
Paper by Stephanie Wade and Jon Freach: “When design in the private sector is used as a catalyst for innovation, it can produce insight into human experience, awareness of equitable and inequitable conditions, and clarity about needs and wants. But when we think of applying design in a government complex, the complicated nature of the civic arena means that public servants need to learn and apply design in ways that are specific to the intricate and expansive ecosystem of long-standing social challenges they face, and learn new mindsets, methods, and ways of working that challenge established practices in a bureaucratic environment. Design offers tools to help navigate the ambiguous boundaries of these complex problems and improve the city’s organizational culture so that it delivers better services to residents and the communities in which they live.
For the new practitioner in government, design can seem exciting, inspiring, hopeful, and fun because over the past decade it has quickly become a popular and novel way to approach city policy and service design. In the early part of the learning process, people often report that using design helps visualize their thoughts, spark meaningful dialogue, and find connections between problems, data, and ideas. But for some, when the going gets tough—when the ambiguity of overlapping and long-standing complex civic problems, a large number of stakeholders, causes, and effects begin to surface—design practices can seem slow and confusing.
In this article we explore the growth and impact of using design in city government and best practices when introducing it into city hall to tackle complex civic sector challenges along with the highs and lows of using design in local government to help cities innovate. The authors, who have worked together to conceive, create, and deliver design training to over 100 global cities, the US federal government, and higher education, share examples from their fieldwork supported by the experiences of city staff members who have applied design methods in their jobs….(More)”.
Connecting After Chaos: Social Media and the Extended Aftermath of Disaster
Book by Stephen F. Ostertag: “Natural disasters and other such catastrophes typically attract large-scale media attention and public concern in their immediate aftermath. However, rebuilding efforts can take years or even decades, and communities are often left to repair physical and psychological damage on their own once public sympathy fades away. Connecting After Chaos tells the story of how people restored their lives and society in the months and years after disaster, focusing on how New Orleanians used social media to cope with trauma following Hurricane Katrina.
Stephen F. Ostertag draws on almost a decade of research to create a vivid portrait of life in “settling times,” a term he defines as a distinct social condition of prolonged insecurity and uncertainty after disasters. He portrays this precarious state through the story of how a group of strangers began blogging in the wake of Katrina, and how they used those blogs to put their lives and their city back together. In the face of institutional failure, weak authority figures, and an abundance of chaos, the people of New Orleans used social media to gain information, foster camaraderie, build support networks, advocate for and against proposed policies, and cope with trauma. In the efforts of these bloggers, Ostertag finds evidence of the capacity of this and other forms of cultural work to motivate, guide, and energize collective action aimed at weathering the constant instability of extended recovery periods. Connecting After Chaos is both a compelling story of a community in crisis and a broader argument for the power of social media and cultural cooperation to create order when chaos abounds…(More)”.
Meta Ran a Giant Experiment in Governance. Now It’s Turning to AI
Article by Aviv Ovadya: “Late last month, Meta quietly announced the results of an ambitious, near-global deliberative “democratic” process to inform decisions around the company’s responsibility for the metaverse it is creating. This was not an ordinary corporate exercise. It involved over 6,000 people who were chosen to be demographically representative across 32 countries and 19 languages. The participants spent many hours in conversation in small online group sessions and got to hear from non-Meta experts about the issues under discussion. Eighty-two percent of the participants said that they would recommend this format as a way for the company to make decisions in the future.
Meta has now publicly committed to running a similar process for generative AI, a move that aligns with the huge burst of interest in democratic innovation for governing or guiding AI systems. In doing so, Meta joins Google, DeepMind, OpenAI, Anthropic, and other organizations that are starting to explore approaches based on the kind of deliberative democracy that I and others have been advocating for. (Disclosure: I am on the application advisory committee for the OpenAI Democratic inputs to AI grant.) Having seen the inside of Meta’s process, I am excited about this as a valuable proof of concept for transnational democratic governance. But for such a process to truly be democratic, participants would need greater power and agency, and the process itself would need to be more public and transparent.
I first got to know several of the employees responsible for setting up Meta’s Community Forums (as these processes came to be called) in the spring of 2019 during a more traditional external consultation with the company to determine its policy on “manipulated media.” I had been writing and speaking about the potential risks of what is now called generative AI and was asked (alongside other experts) to provide input on the kind of policies Meta should develop to address issues such as misinformation that could be exacerbated by the technology.
At around the same time, I first learned about representative deliberations—an approach to democratic decisionmaking that has taken off like wildfire, with increasingly high-profile citizen assemblies and deliberative polls all over the world. The basic idea is that governments bring difficult policy questions back to the public to decide. Instead of a referendum or elections, a representative microcosm of the public is selected via lottery. That group is brought together for days or even weeks (with compensation) to learn from experts, stakeholders, and each other before coming to a final set of recommendations…(More)”.