Exponential Tech Doesn’t Serve Social Good


Essay by Douglas Rushkoff: “We all want to do good. Well, a great many of us want to do good. We recognize that the climate is in peril, corporations are dangerously extractive, wealth disparity is at all-time highs, our kids are self-destructively addicted to social media, politics has descended into a reality TV show with paranoid features, and that civilization itself has only about another 20 years before some combination of the above threats makes life unrecognizable or even unsustainable.

The good news, at least according to the majority of invitations I get to participate in conferences and with organizations, is that there’s an app or technology or network or platform or, most often these days, a token that can fix some or all of this. The latest frame around the technosolutionist frenzy is called web 3.0, which has come to mean the decentralized sort of internet characterized by TOR networks (basically, Napster and BitTorrent where everything is hosted everywhere) and the blockchain (a new form of automated ledger).

This generation of distributed technology, it is hoped, will engender and facilitate a new era of environmental stewardship, economic equality, racial justice, democratic values, and civic harmony. Even better, the tokens at the heart of these blockchains for global good will make people rich. Sure, those who get in early will do the best, but the magic of smart contracts will somehow raise all boats, letting us feel great about doing well by doing good — secure in the knowledge that the returns we’re seeing on all this “impact investing” are the deserved surplus fruits of our having dedicated our careers and portfolios to public service.

But getting such efforts off the ground is always the hard part. There are so many terrific people and organizations out there, each building platforms and apps and networks and blockchains, too. How do we break through the noise and bring all those many decentralized organizations together into the one, single centralized decentralized network? And once we do, how do we prove that ours really is the one that will solve the problems? Because without enough buy-in, figuratively and literally, the token won’t be worth anything and all that good won’t get done….(More)”.

Towards Better Governance of Urban Data: Concrete Examples of Success


Blogpost by Naysan Saran: “Since the Sumerians of the fourth millennium BCE, governments have kept records. These records have, of course, evolved from a few hundred cuneiform symbols engraved on clay tablets to terabytes of data hosted on cloud servers. However, their primary goal remains the same: to improve land management.

That being said, the six thousand years of civilization separating us from the Sumerians has seen the birth of democracy, and with that birth, a second goal has been grafted onto the first: cities must now earn the trust of their citizens with respect to how they manage those citizens’ data. This goal cannot be achieved without good data governance, which defines strategies for the efficient and transparent use and distribution of information.

To learn more about the state of the art in municipal data management, both internally and externally, we went to meet with two experts who agreed to share their experiences and best practices: François Robitaille, business architect for the city of Laval; and Adrienne Schmoeker, former Deputy Chief Analytics Officer for the City of New York, and Director at the New York City Mayor’s Office of Data Analytics where she managed the Open Data Program for three years….(More)”

Why the world needs more Mavericks


Essay by Ian Burbidge: “As we turn our minds to the work that will be needed following the global pandemic of Covid-19, the challenges that confront society remain significant: from preventing the climate crisis to tackling racial justice, improving mental health to ending poverty. We need new ways of thinking and acting in the world. 

For those of us of a certain age ’Maverick’ will evoke images of an uber-confident fighter pilot buzzing control towers and generally flouting the rules of the navy in the 1980s Top Gun movie. A common feature of those at the top of their game, who are seemingly untouchable in their work, or who simply see things differently, is that the unusual perspective and skillset from which they operate enables them to push the boundaries of what’s common or acceptable practice.

Without someone stretching the realms of what’s possible in the first place there isn’t room for the rest of us to experiment or play with the new possibilities that open up as a result.

Sometimes this can stretch a limiting mindset, just as the 4 minute mile was once thought to be beyond the possibility of the human body. Sometimes it simply breaks new ground, as Kevin Peterson’s switch hit in cricket did. Sometimes it confounds social expectations, as Emilia Earhart being the first woman to make a solo non-stop transatlantic flight. Some are well known, others less so. Wynne Fletcher, my Nan, trained during the second world war as a wireless mechanic yet on arrival at a Lincolnshire airbase was sent to the typing pool. She soon found a way to overcome the assumptions of the base commander and do the job she was really there for, ensuring the equipment on board the aircraft was operating effectively, on occasion accompanying the crew on bombing sorties.

Conformists don’t tend to push boundaries or challenge convention because the very act of operating within the rules suggests a mindset or approach that is not going to be comfortable outside of them.

Of course, we need people like this; they provide the stable foundation that creates the order without which everything falls apart. Dynamic change happens from a place of stability. But it can’t happen without those who catalyse such change. To do that, they have to see and do things differently, and that’s a core characteristic of those we call mavericks.

Samuel Maverick was a Texas lawyer, politician and land baron who refused to brand his calves. His logic was if all the other cattle owners branded theirs then any unbranded animals would be recognised as his. This created a new kind of unbranded brand, and inadvertently increased his stock as a result. Samuel went against the grain. It’s from him that we draw the Oxford English dictionary definition of a maverick as someone who “thinks and acts in an independent way, often behaving differently from the expected or usual way”.

Understanding the value that such people bring to the world is therefore an important contribution to our account of what it takes to create change and bring value to the world, especially if we care about pushing humanity forward….(More)”.

Data Stewardship Re-Imagined — Capacities and Competencies


Blog and presentation by Stefaan Verhulst: “In ways both large and small, COVID-OVID-19 has forced us to re-examine every aspect of our political, social, and economic systems. Among the many lessons, policymakers have learned is that existing methods for using data are often insufficient for our most pressing challenges. In particular, we need to find new, innovative ways of tapping into the potential of privately held and siloed datasets that nonetheless contain tremendous public good potential, including complementing and extending official statistics. Data collaboratives are an emerging set of methods for accessing and reusing data that offer tremendous opportunities in this regard. In the last five years, we have studied and initiated numerous data collaboratives, in the process assembling a collection of over 200 example case studies to better understand their possibilities.

Among our key findings is the vital importance and essential role that needs to be played by Data Stewards.

Data stewards do not represent an entirely new profession; rather, their role could be understood as an extension and re-definition of existing organizational positions that manage and interact with data. Traditionally, the role of a data officer was limited either to data integrity or the narrow context of internal data governance and management, with a strong emphasis on technical competencies. This narrow conception is no longer sufficient, especially given the proliferation of data and the increasing potential of data sharing and collaboration. As such, we call for a re-imagination of data stewardship to encompass a wider range of functions and responsibilities, directed at leveraging data assets toward addressing societal challenges and improving people’s lives.

DATA STEWARDSHIP: functions and competencies to enable access to and re-use of data for public benefit in a systematic, sustainable, and responsible way.

In our vision, data stewards are professionals empowered to create public value (including official statistics) by re-using data and data expertise, identifying opportunities for productive cross-sectoral collaboration, and proactively requesting or enabling functional access to data, insights, and expertise. Data stewards are active in both the public and private sectors, promoting trust within and outside their organizations. They are essential to data collaboratives by providing functional access to unlock the potential of siloed data sets. In short, data stewards form a new — and essential — link in the data value chain….(More)”.

What is the Power Footprint of International Organizations?


Blog at WeRobotics: “It’s undeniable that international nonprofit organizations headquartered in the West hold a vast amount of power compared to local organizations in the “Majority World”. Systemic factors, such as colonialism and racism, have enabled international nonprofit organizations (INGOs) to increase their authority, control, and influence in multiple industries like humanitarian aid and global development. You might say that these NGOs have a large “power footprint.” Power itself is of course not inherently bad. All organizations need some level of power to drive change. But power can become menacing when centralized and rooted in a singular worldview. The result, as we’ve seen in the INGO space, is a Western-centric system that drives change in a foreign-led, top-down, and techno-centric manner…

How do we measure our own power footprints to create more visibility and transparency? Can we co-create practical metrics to measure the power footprint of INGOs? Can we make the consequences or byproducts of said footprints more visible? Can we gain inspiration from other fields? How is the carbon footprint measured, for example?…

We realize full well that measuring power footprints is a wholly different undertaking to measuring carbon footprints. Analogies can capture the imagination and serve as powerful metaphors, however. Heavy industries have significant positive impact by creating countless jobs and higher standards of living. Over time, however, the cumulative impact of large carbon footprints triggers a global climate emergency. In a similar vein, the massive power footprints of INGOs may be contributing to another global emergency: the pandemic of inequality. There’s lots to unpack here, so we’re working on a longer peer-reviewed piece that expands on these ideas and several other points that we don’t have the space to get into here.

In sum, we know that power is relational, complicated, and polarizing. We also know we’ve got to start somewhere. We need to co-create a transparent mechanism to make the invisible visible and ensure that the reduction of power footprints is real and not just symbolic. The alternative is to continue having the same conversations over and over without ever doing something to affect change. So we’ve developed 5 very preliminary metrics for illustrative purposes, and applied them to our own INGO, WeRobotics.

Each proposed metric is rooted in a question to ourselves and fellow INGOs:

  1. Are our country offices (or equivalent) independent?
  2. Are they locally-led?
  3. Can they exit at any time?
  4. Are we ceding market share?
  5. Do we have a clear Endgame or exit strategy?…(More)”

Consumers Are Becoming Wise to Your Nudge


Article by Simon Shaw: “The broader question, one essential to both academics and practitioners, is how a world saturated with behavioral interventions might no longer resemble the one in which those interventions were first studied. Are we aiming at a moving target?

This was the basis for a research project we completed in February 2019 examining reactions of the British public to a range of behavioral interventions. We took a nationally representative sample of 2,102 British adults, and undertook an experimental evaluation of some of marketers’ most commonly used tactics.

We started by asking participants to consider a hypothetical scenario: using a hotel booking website to find a room to stay in the following week. We then showed a series of nine real-world scarcity and social proof claims made by an unnamed hotel booking website.

Two thirds of the British public (65 percent) interpreted examples of scarcity and social proof claims used by hotel booking websites as sales pressure. Half said they were likely to distrust the company as a result of seeing them (49 percent). Just one in six (16 percent) said they believed the claims. 

The results surprised us. We had expected there to be cynicism among a subgroup—perhaps people who booked hotels regularly, for example. The verbatim commentary from participants showed people see scarcity and social proof claims frequently online, most commonly in the travel, retail, and fashion sectors. They questioned truth of these ads, but were resigned to their use:

“It’s what I’ve seen often on hotel websites—it’s what they do to tempt you.”

“Have seen many websites do this kind of thing so don’t really feel differently when I do see it.”

In a follow up question, a third (34 percent) expressed a negative emotional reaction to these messages, choosing words like contempt and disgust from a precoded list. Crucially, this was because they ascribed bad intentions to the website. The messages were, in their view, designed to induce anxiety:

 “… almost certainly fake to try and panic you into buying without thinking.”

“I think this type of thing is to pressure you into booking for fear of losing out and not necessarily true.”

For these people, not only are these behavioral interventions not working but they’re having the reverse effect. We hypothesize psychological reactance is at play: people kick back when they feel they are being coerced….(More)”.

A History of the Data-Tracked User


Essay by Tanya Kant: “Who among us hasn’t blindly accepted a cookie notice or an inscrutable privacy policy, or been stalked by a creepy “personalized” ad? Tracking and profiling are now commonplace fixtures of the digital everyday. This stands even if you use tracker blockers, which have been likened to “using an umbrella in a hurricane.”

In most instances, data tracking is conducted in the name of offering “personalized experiences” to web users: individually targeted marketing, tailored newsfeeds, recommended products and content. To offer such experiences, platforms such as Facebook and Google use a dizzyingly extensive list of categories to track and profile people: gender, age, ethnicity, lifestyle and consumption preferences, language, voice recordings, facial recognition, location, political leanings, music and film taste, income, credit status, employment status, home ownership status, marital status — the list goes on….

As I explore in this case study, and as part of my work on algorithmic identity, data tracking does not just match the “right” people with the “right” products and services — it can dis­criminate, govern, and regulate web users in ways that demand close attention to the social and ethical implications of targeting.

It is not an overstatement to propose that data tracking underpins the online economy as we know it.

Commercial platform providers frame data tracking as inevitable: Data in exchange for a (personalized) service is presented as the best, and often the only, option for platform users. Yet this has not always been the case: In the mid-to-late 1990s, when the web was still in its infancy, “cyberspace” was largely celebrated as public, non-tracked space which afforded users freedom of anonymity. How then did the individual tracking of users come to dominate the web as a market practice?

The following timeline outlines a partial history of the data-tracked user. It centers largely on developments that have affected European (and to a lesser extent U.S.) web users. This timeline includes developments in commercial targeting in the EU and U.S. rather than global developments in algorithmic policing, spatial infrastructures, medicine, and education, all of which are related but deserve their own timelines. This brief history fits into ongoing conversations around algorithmic targeting by reminding us that being tracked and targeted emerges from a historically specific set of developments. Increased legal scrutiny of targeting means that individual targeting as we know it may soon change dramatically — though while the assumption that profiling web users equates to more profit, it’s more than likely that data tracking will persist in some form.


1940s. “Identity scoring” emerges: the categorization of individuals to calculate the benefits or risks of lending credit to certain groups of people….(More)”.

Why you should develop a Rules as Code-enabled future


Blog by Tim de Sousa: “In 2021, Rules as Code (RaC) is truly hitting its stride. More governments are exploring the concept of machine-consumable legislation, regulation and policy, research institutes have been established, papers and reports are being published, tools and platforms are being built, and multi-disciplinary teams are learning new ways to draft and implement rules by getting their hands dirty.

RaC is still an emerging practice. Much of the current discussion about RaC is centred on introductory questions such as why and how we should code rules (and we’ve tried to answer those questions here), but to understand the true potential of RaC, we have to take a longer view.

In this two-part series, I set out some possible optimistic futures that could be enabled by RaC. We have to ask ourselves what kind of world we want to build with coded rules. so we can better plan how to get there.

Trustworthy automated decisions

The first reaction that RaC practitioners are often faced with is the fear of the killer robot. What happens if the automated system makes a wrong decision? What if that decision hurts someone? This is not an unfounded fear – we have seen poorly implemented and poorly used automated systems raise debts that are not owed, and lead to the arrest of innocent people. All human-built systems have flaws, and RaC-enabled systems are not immune.

As a former administrative lawyer and someone who grapples with the ethical uses of technology on a daily basis, the use of RaC to help people understand what decisions are being made and how they’re being made – that is, to enable trustworthy automated decisions – is particularly compelling.

Administrative law is the body of law that regulates how governments make decisions. In common law countries, this generally includes requirements that only relevant matters should be taken into account, irrelevant matters should not be, reasons should be given for decisions, and there should be workable avenues for merits reviews of decisions…(More)”

A Curation of Tools for Promoting Effective Data Re-Use for Addressing Public Challenges


Blog by Sampriti Saxena, Andrew J. Zahuranec, and Stefaan Verhulst: “Data can be a powerful tool for change, if made accessible and leveraged responsibly. Since The GovLab’s Data Program began work six years ago, it has structured most of its work around this fact, seeking to tackle many of the complex challenges we face today by enabling access to data. 

In this blog, the Data Program provides a curation of tools that we’ve developed over the years to enable systematic, sustainable and responsible re-use of data – i.e. data stewardship. Organized into four categories—each dealing with a topic or issue we’ve studied in our work—this listing gives data practitioners the resources they need to make sense of the data they work with.  We hope that it will help practitioners to develop fit-for-purpose approaches when designing open data and data collaboration initiatives.

  • Data Collaboration…
  • Open Data…
  • Responsible Data…
  • Participatory Approaches…(More)”.

The search engine of 1896


The Generalist Academy: In 1896 Paul Otlet set up a bibliographic query service by mail: a 19th century search engine….The end of the 19th century was awash with the written word: books, monographs, and publications of all kinds. It was fiendishly difficult to find what you wanted in that mess. Bibliographies – compilations of references on a specific subject – were the maps to this vast informational territory. But they were expensive and time-consuming to compile.

Paul Otlet had a passion for information. More precisely, he had a passion for organising information. He and Henri La Fontaine made bibliographies on many subjects – and then turned their efforts towards creating something better. A master bibliography. A bibliography to rule them all, nothing less than a complete record of everything that had ever been published on every topic. This was their plan: the grandly named Universal Bibliographic Repertory.

This ambitious endeavour listed sources for every topic that its creators could imagine. The references were meticulously recorded on index cards that were filed in a massive series of drawers like the ones pictured above. The whole thing was arranged according to their Universal Decimal Classification, and it was enormous. In 1895 there were four hundred thousand entries. At its peak in 1934, there were nearly sixteen million.

How could you access such a mega-bibliography? Well, Otlet and La Fontaine set up a mail service. People set in queries and received a summary of publications relating to that topic. Curious about the native religions of Sumatra? Want to explore the 19th century decipherment of Akkadian cuneiform? Send a request to the Universal Bibliographic Repertory, get a tidy list of the references you need. It was nothing less than a manual search engine, one hundred and twenty-five years ago.

Encyclopedia Universalis
Paul Otlet, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

Otlet had many more ambitions: a world encyclopaedia of knowledge, contraptions to easily access every publication in the world (he was an early microfiche pioneer), and a whole city to serve as the bright centre of global intellect. These ambitions were mostly unrealised, due to lack of funds and the intervention of war. But today Otlet is recognised as an important figure in the history of information science…(More)”.