Article by Pattharapong Rattanasevee, Yared Akarapattananukul & Yodsapon Chirawut: “This article delves into the evolving landscape of direct democracy, particularly in the context of the digital era, where ICT and digital platforms play a pivotal role in shaping democratic engagement. Through a comprehensive analysis of empirical data and theoretical frameworks, it evaluates the advantages and inherent challenges of direct democracy, such as majority tyranny, short-term focus, polarization, and the spread of misinformation. It proposes the concept of Liquid democracy as a promising hybrid model that combines direct and representative elements, allowing for voting rights delegation to trusted entities, thereby potentially mitigating some of the traditional drawbacks of direct democracy. Furthermore, the article underscores the necessity for legal regulations and constitutional safeguards to protect fundamental rights and ensure long-term sustainability within a direct democracy framework. This research contributes to the ongoing discourse on democratic innovation and highlights the need for a balanced approach to integrating digital tools with democratic processes…(More)”.
A linkless internet
Essay by Collin Jennings: “..But now Google and other websites are moving away from relying on links in favour of artificial intelligence chatbots. Considered as preserved trails of connected ideas, links make sense as early victims of the AI revolution since large language models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT, Google’s Gemini and others abstract the information represented online and present it in source-less summaries. We are at a moment in the history of the web in which the link itself – the countless connections made by website creators, the endless tapestry of ideas woven together throughout the web – is in danger of going extinct. So it’s pertinent to ask: how did links come to represent information in the first place? And what’s at stake in the movement away from links toward AI chat interfaces?
To answer these questions, we need to go back to the 17th century, when writers and philosophers developed the theory of mind that ultimately inspired early hypertext plans. In this era, prominent philosophers, including Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, debated the extent to which a person controls the succession of ideas that appears in her mind. They posited that the succession of ideas reflects the interaction between the data received from the senses and one’s mental faculties – reason and imagination. Subsequently, David Hume argued that all successive ideas are linked by association. He enumerated three kinds of associative connections among ideas: resemblance, contiguity, and cause and effect. In An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding (1748), Hume offers examples of each relationship:
A picture naturally leads our thoughts to the original: the mention of one apartment in a building naturally introduces an enquiry or discourse concerning the others: and if we think of a wound, we can scarcely forbear reflecting on the pain which follows it.
The mind follows connections found in the world. Locke and Hume believed that all human knowledge comes from experience, and so they had to explain how the mind receives, processes and stores external data. They often reached for media metaphors to describe the relationship between the mind and the world. Locke compared the mind to a blank tablet, a cabinet and a camera obscura. Hume relied on the language of printing to distinguish between the vivacity of impressions imprinted upon one’s senses and the ideas recalled in the mind…(More)”.
The Recommendation on Information Integrity
OECD Recommendation: “…The digital transformation of societies has reshaped how people interact and engage with information. Advancements in digital technologies and novel forms of communication have changed the way information is produced, shared, and consumed, locally and globally and across all media. Technological changes and the critical importance of online information platforms offer unprecedented access to information, foster citizen engagement and connection, and allow for innovative news reporting. However, they can also provide a fertile ground for the rapid spread of false, altered, or misleading content. In addition, new generative AI tools have greatly reduced the barriers to creating and spreading content.
Promoting the availability and free flow of high-quality, evidence-based information is key to upholding individuals’ ability to seek and receive information and ideas of all kinds and to safeguarding freedom of opinion and expression.
The volume of content to which citizens are exposed can obscure and saturate public debates and help widen societal divisions. In this context, the quality of civic discourse declines as evidence-based information, which helps people make sense of their social environment, becomes harder to find. This reality has acted as a catalyst for governments to explore more closely the roles they can play, keeping as a priority in our democracies the necessity that governments should not exercise control of the information ecosystem and that, on the contrary, they support an environment where a plurality of information sources, views, and opinions can thrive…Building on the detailed policy framework outlined in the OECD report Facts not Fakes: Tackling Disinformation, Strengthening Information Integrity, the Recommendation provides an ambitious and actionable international standard that will help governments develop a systemic approach to foster information integrity, relying on a multi-stakeholder approach…(More)”.
Changing Behaviour by Adding an Option
Paper by Lukas Fuchs: “Adding an option is a neglected mechanism for bringing about behavioural change. This mechanism is distinct from nudges, which are changes in the choice architecture, and instead makes it possible to pursue republican paternalism, a unique form of paternalism in which choices are changed by expanding people’s set of options. I argue that this is truly a form of paternalism (albeit a relatively soft one) and illustrate some of its manifestations in public policy, specifically public options and market creation. Furthermore, I compare it with libertarian paternalism on several dimensions, namely respect for individuals’ agency, effectiveness, and efficiency. Finally, I consider whether policymakers have the necessary knowledge to successfully change behaviour by adding options. Given that adding an option has key advantages over nudges in most if not all of these dimensions, it should be considered indispensable in the behavioural policymaker’s toolbox…(More)”.
How cities are reinventing the public-private partnership − 4 lessons from around the globe
Article by Debra Lam: “Cities tackle a vast array of responsibilities – from building transit networks to running schools – and sometimes they can use a little help. That’s why local governments have long teamed up with businesses in so-called public-private partnerships. Historically, these arrangements have helped cities fund big infrastructure projects such as bridges and hospitals.
However, our analysis and research show an emerging trend with local governments engaged in private-sector collaborations – what we have come to describe as “community-centered, public-private partnerships,” or CP3s. Unlike traditional public-private partnerships, CP3s aren’t just about financial investments; they leverage relationships and trust. And they’re about more than just building infrastructure; they’re about building resilient and inclusive communities.
As the founding executive director of the Partnership for Inclusive Innovation, based out of the Georgia Institute of Technology, I’m fascinated with CP3s. And while not all CP3s are successful, when done right they offer local governments a powerful tool to navigate the complexities of modern urban life.
Together with international climate finance expert Andrea Fernández of the urban climate leadership group C40, we analyzed community-centered, public-private partnerships across the world and put together eight case studies. Together, they offer valuable insights into how cities can harness the power of CP3s.
4 keys to success
Although we looked at partnerships forged in different countries and contexts, we saw several elements emerge as critical to success over and over again.
• 1. Clear mission and vision: It’s essential to have a mission that resonates with everyone involved. Ruta N in Medellín, Colombia, for example, transformed the city into a hub of innovation, attracting 471 technology companies and creating 22,500 jobs.
This vision wasn’t static. It evolved in response to changing local dynamics, including leadership priorities and broader global trends. However, the core mission of entrepreneurship, investment and innovation remained clear and was embraced by all key stakeholders, driving the partnership forward.
2. Diverse and engaged partners: Successful CP3s rely on the active involvement of a wide range of partners, each bringing their unique expertise and resources to the table. In the U.K., for example, the Hull net-zero climate initiative featured a partnership that included more than 150 companies, many small and medium-size. This diversity of partners was crucial to the initiative’s success because they could leverage resources and share risks, enabling it to address complex challenges from multiple angles.
Similarly, Malaysia’s Think City engaged community-based organizations and vulnerable populations in its Penang climate adaptation program. This ensured that the partnership was inclusive and responsive to the needs of all citizens…(More)”.
Space, Satellites, and Democracy: Implications of the New Space Age for Democratic Processes and Recommendations for Action
NDI Report: “The dawn of a new space age is upon us, marked by unprecedented engagement from both state and private actors. Driven by technological innovations such as reusable rockets and miniaturized satellites, this era presents a double-edged sword for global democracy. On one side, democratized access to space offers powerful tools for enhancing civic processes. Satellite technology now enables real-time election monitoring, improved communication in remote areas, and more effective public infrastructure planning. It also equips democratic actors with means to document human rights abuses and circumvent authoritarian internet restrictions.
However, the accessibility of these technologies also raises significant concerns. The potential for privacy infringements and misuse by authoritarian regimes or malicious actors casts a shadow over these advancements.
This report discusses the opportunities and risks that space and satellite technologies pose to democracy, human rights, and civic processes globally. It examines the current regulatory and normative frameworks governing space activities and highlights key considerations for stakeholders navigating this increasingly competitive domain.
It is essential that the global democracy community be familiar with emerging trends in space and satellite technology and their implications for the future. Failure to do so will leave the community unprepared to harness the opportunities or address the challenges that space capabilities present. It would also cede influence over the development of global norms and standards in this arena to states and private sector interests alone and, in turn, ensure those standards are not rooted in democratic norms and human rights, but rather in principles such as state sovereignty and profit maximization…(More)”.
Synthetic content and its implications for AI policy: a primer
UNESCO Paper: “The deployment of advanced Artificial Intelligence (AI) models, particularly generative AI, has sparked discussions regarding the creation and use of synthetic content – i.e. AI-generated or modified outputs, including text, images, sounds, and combinations thereof – and its impact on individuals, societies, and economies. This note explores the different ways in which synthetic content can be generated and used and proposes a taxonomy that encompasses synthetic media and deepfakes, among others. The taxonomy aims to systematize key characteristics, enhancing understanding and informing policy discussions. Key findings highlight both the potential benefits and concerns associated with synthetic content in fields like data analytics, environmental sustainability, education, creativity, and mis/disinformation and point to the need to frame them ethically, in line with the principles and values of UNESCO Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence. Finally, the note brings to the fore critical questions that policymakers and experts alike need to address to ensure that the development of AI technologies aligns with human rights, human dignity, and fundamental freedoms…(More)”.
Synthetic Data, Synthetic Media, and Surveillance
Paper by Aaron Martin and Bryce Newell: “Public and scholarly interest in the related concepts of synthetic data and synthetic media has exploded in recent years. From issues raised by the generation of synthetic datasets to train machine learning models to the public-facing, consumer availability of artificial intelligence (AI) powered image manipulation and creation apps and the associated increase in synthetic (or “deepfake”) media, these technologies have shifted from being niche curiosities of the computer science community to become topics of significant public, corporate, and regulatory import. They are emblematic of a “data-generation revolution” (Gal and Lynskey 2024: 1091) that is already raising pressing questions for the academic surveillance studies community. Within surveillance studies scholarship, Fussey (2022: 348) has argued that synthetic media is one of several “issues of urgent societal and planetary concern” and that it has “arguably never been more important” for surveillance studies “researchers to understand these dynamics and complex processes, evidence their implications, and translate esoteric knowledge to produce meaningful analysis.” Yet, while fields adjacent to surveillance studies have begun to explore the ethical risks of synthetic data, we currently perceive a lack of attention to the surveillance implications of synthetic data and synthetic media in published literature within our field. In response, this Dialogue is designed to help promote thinking and discussion about the links and disconnections between synthetic data, synthetic media, and surveillance…(More)”
Rethinking Theories of Governance
Book by Christopher Ansell: “Are theories of governance useful for helping policymakers and citizens meet and tackle contemporary challenges? This insightful book reflects on how a theory becomes useful and evaluates a range of theories according to whether they are warranted, diagnostic, and dialogical.
By arguing that useful theory tells us what to ask, not what to do, Christopher Ansell investigates what it means for a theory to be useful. Analysing how governance theories address a variety of specific challenges, chapters examine intractable public problems, weak government accountability, violent conflict, global gridlock, poverty and the unsustainable exploitation of our natural resources. Finding significant tensions between state- and society-centric perspectives on governance, the book concludes with a suggestion that we refocus our theories of governance on possibilities for state-society synergy. Governance theories of the future, Ansell argues, should also strive for a more fruitful dialogue between instrumental, critical and explanatory perspectives.
Examining both the conceptual and empirical basis of theories of governance, this comprehensive book will be an invigorating read for scholars and students in the fields of public administration, public policy and planning, development studies, political science and urban, environmental and global governance. By linking theories of governance to concrete societal challenges, it will also be of use to policymakers and practitioners concerned with these fields…(More)”.
Bad data costs Americans trillions. Let’s fix it with a renewed data strategy
Article by Nick Hart & Suzette Kent: “Over the past five years, the federal government lost $200-to-$500 billion per year in fraud to improper payments — that’s up to $3,000 taken from every working American’s pocket annually. Since 2003, these preventable losses have totaled an astounding $2.7 trillion. But here’s the good news: We already have the data and technology to greatly eliminate this waste in the years ahead. The operational structure and legal authority to put these tools to work protecting taxpayer dollars needs to be refreshed and prioritized.
The challenge is straightforward: Government agencies often can’t effectively share and verify basic information before sending payments. For example, federal agencies may not be able to easily check if someone is deceased, verify income or detect duplicate payments across programs…(More)”.