Paper by Alberto Bitonti: “While the literature on digital transformation is growing in several fields, research on the effects of digital innovation in the practice of public affairs is still scattered and unsystematic, mostly focusing on interest groups’ social media strategies. However, digital innovation has begun to change the practice of public affairs management in many areas, especially in the form of datafication, AI analytics, and cloud-based knowledge management platforms. Growing possibilities in the use of data science and evidence-informed strategic decision-making have arisen in domains traditionally shaped by intuitions and non-codified professional experience. Based on desk research of case studies and hands-on analyses of three increasingly popular public affairs management software platforms (FiscalNote, Quorum, KMIND), this article develops a practice-oriented analysis of various digital tools and functionalities available to public affairs practitioners today, tackling a gap in the literature on how digital innovation can impact the management of several activities along the different phases of a public affairs campaign (monitoring and analysis, strategy design, action, assessment). The article thus highlights how digital innovation goes way beyond the sheer use of social media in communication activities, impacting the practice of public affairs on a deeper and more strategic level…(More)”.
Experimentation spaces for regulatory learning
Staff Working Document by the European Commission: “..one of the actions of the New European Innovation Agenda sets out available experimentation tools (especially regulatory sandboxes, but also testbeds and living labs) and showcases existing examples from Europe and beyond on how the European Union and national governments can support and engage innovators in the regulatory process.
Experimentation is a key-component of innovation. European innovators are facing new challenges, also in terms of different or limited experimentation spaces and related regulations.
The Staff Working Document presents a general overview on these experimentation spaces and includes a special focus on the energy sector, in line with the RePowerEU Communication.
The New European Innovation Agenda, adopted on 5 July 2022, aims to position Europe at the forefront of the new wave of deep tech innovation and start-ups. It will help Europe to develop new technologies to address the most pressing societal challenges, and to bring them on the market. Europe wants to be the place where the best talent work hand in hand with the best companies and where deep tech innovation thrives and creates breakthrough innovative solutions across the continent.
One of the five flagships of the New European Innovation Agenda refers to “enabling deep tech innovation through experimentation spaces and public procurement. It includes this guidance document on experimentation spaces as one of the main deliverables, together with a revised state aid framework for Research and Development, experimentation facilities for AI innovation and the setting-up of an “Innovation Friendly Regulations Advisory Group” working on virtual worlds.
Regulatory sandboxes are schemes that enable testing innovations in a controlled real world environment, that may include temporary loosening of applicable rules while safeguarding regulatory objectives such as safety and consumer protection.
Test beds are experimentation spaces with a technological focus that do not necessarily have a regulatory component.
Living labs are based on co-creation and on the experience and involvement of users and citizens…(More)”.
Tyranny of the Minority
Book by Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt: “America is undergoing a massive experiment: It is moving, in fits and starts, toward a multiracial democracy, something few societies have ever done. But the prospect of change has sparked an authoritarian backlash that threatens the very foundations of our political system. Why is democracy under assault here, and not in other wealthy, diversifying nations? And what can we do to save it?
With the clarity and brilliance that made their first book, How Democracies Die, a global bestseller, Harvard professors Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt offer a coherent framework for understanding these volatile times. They draw on a wealth of examples—from 1930s France to present-day Thailand—to explain why and how political parties turn against democracy. They then show how our Constitution makes us uniquely vulnerable to attacks from within: It is a pernicious enabler of minority rule, allowing partisan minorities to consistently thwart and even rule over popular majorities. Most modern democracies—from Germany and Sweden to Argentina and New Zealand—have eliminated outdated institutions like elite upper chambers, indirect elections, and lifetime tenure for judges. The United States lags dangerously behind.
In this revelatory book, Levitsky and Ziblatt issue an urgent call to reform our politics. It’s a daunting task, but we have remade our country before—most notably, after the Civil War and during the Progressive Era. And now we are at a crossroads: America will either become a multiracial democracy or cease to be a democracy at all…(More)”.
Should Computers Decide How Much Things Cost?
Article by Colin Horgan: “In the summer of 2012, the Wall Street Journal reported that the travel booking website Orbitz had, in some cases, been suggesting to Apple users hotel rooms that cost more per night than those it was showing to Windows users. The company found that people who used Mac computers spent as much as 30 percent more a night on hotels. It was one of the first high-profile instances where the predictive capabilities of algorithms were shown to impact consumer-facing prices.
Since then, the pool of data available to corporations about each of us (the information we’ve either volunteered or that can be inferred from our web browsing and buying histories) has expanded significantly, helping companies build ever more precise purchaser profiles. Personalized pricing is now widespread, even if many consumers are only just realizing what it is. Recently, other algorithm-driven pricing models, like Uber’s surge or Ticketmaster’s dynamic pricing for concerts, have surprised users and fans. In the past few months, dynamic pricing—which is based on factors such as quantity—has pushed up prices of some concert tickets even before they hit the resale market, including for artists like Drake and Taylor Swift. And while personalized pricing is slightly different, these examples of computer-driven pricing have spawned headlines and social media posts that reflect a growing frustration with data’s role in how prices are dictated.
The marketplace is said to be a realm of assumed fairness, dictated by the rules of competition, an objective environment where one consumer is the same as any other. But this idea is being undermined by the same opaque and confusing programmatic data profiling that’s slowly encroaching on other parts of our lives—the algorithms. The Canadian government is currently considering new consumer-protection regulations, including what to do to control algorithm-based pricing. While strict market regulation is considered by some to be a political risk, another solution may exist—not at the point of sale but at the point where our data is gathered in the first place.
In theory, pricing algorithms aren’t necessarily bad…(More)”.
A Web of Our Own Making: The Nature of Digital Formation
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)”.