Menu

Governance & Security

Articles from Policy & Internet, Governance & Security, Policy, Politics & Government

Mediated Trust: From the open Internet to artificial intelligence

Previous article Next article
by Terry Flew

Trust is a critical driver for AI adoption. If people do not trust AI, they will be reluctant to use it, writes Professor Terry Flew.

by Terry Flew
Abstract illustration of AI with silhouette head full of eyes, symbolizing observation and technology.

There has been a resurgence of interest in recent years in setting policies for digital platforms and the challenges of platform power. It has been estimated that there are over 120 public inquiries taking place across different nation‐states, as well as by supranational entities such as the United Nations and the European Union. Similarly, the current surge in enquiries, reviews and policy statements concerning artificial intelligence (AI), such as the Biden Administration’s Executive Order on Safe Secure and Trustworthy Artificial Intelligence in the U.S., the U.K.’s AI Safety Summit and the EU AI Act, also speak to this desire to put regulatory frameworks in place to steer the future development of digital technologies.  The push for greater nation‐state regulation of digital platforms has occurred in the context of the platformisation of the internet, and the concentration of control over key functions of the digital economy by a relatively small number of global technology corporations. This concentration of power and control is clearly apparent with artificial intelligence, where what the U.K. House of Commons Science, Innovation and Technology Committee referred to as the access to data challenge, with ‘the most powerful AI needs very large datasets, which are held by few organisations’, is paramount  (House of Commons Science, Innovation and Technology Committee, 2023, p. 18). As a result, the extent to which the political of platform governance appears as a direct contest between corporate and governmental power is clearer than was the case in the early years of the open Internet. In my Policy & Internet paper, “Mediated Trust, the Internet and Artificial Intelligence: Ideas, interests, institutions and futures”, I argue that trust is a central part of communication, and communication is central to trust. Moreover, the nature of that connection has intensified in an age of universal and pervasive digital media networks. The push towards nation‐state regulation of digital platforms has come from the intersection of two trust vectors: the…

Abstract illustration of AI with silhouette head full of eyes, symbolizing observation and technology.
Articles from Policy & Internet, Governance & Security, Policy, Politics & Government

The Power of Digital Participation – How Online Tools Affect and Are Affected by Policy Conflicts

Previous article Next article
by Ilana Schröder

Can e-participation improve policy processes, or do existing conflicts hinder its potential?

by Ilana Schröder
Vibrant abstract pattern of illuminated red LED lights forming a dynamic design.

Involving local communities in political decisions is essential for transparent governance. This involvement is especially important in controversial issues, such as the siting of infrastructure, where a balance must be struck between the collective benefits of projects and the personal costs for nearby residents. However, despite efforts to engage communities, participation processes often lead to protests, loss of trust, and project blockades. This is where e-participation tools can play a significant role. As digital transformation reshapes governance, an increasing number of online platforms are being integrated into traditional participation processes. These platforms aim to make participation more inclusive and transparent by allowing individuals to engage regardless of their location or the time and by fostering a space for clear knowledge exchange. Nonetheless, how effective are communities in accessing these tools, particularly when conflicts are already intense? Can e-participation improve policy processes, or do existing conflicts hinder its potential? Our recent article published in Policy & Internet, titled “Digital Citizen Participation in Policy Conflict and Concord: Evaluation of a Web-Based Planning Tool for Railroad Infrastructure” by Ilana Schröder and Nils C. Bandelow, explores these questions. The research examines the performance of e-participation in both low- and high-conflict settings by focusing on a web-based tool that allows citizens to propose alternative railroad routes. Study participants were asked to use the online tool in a hypothetical scenario characterized as either conflictual or consensual. They then assessed the tool’s ability to promote inclusion, transparency, conflict resolution, and efficiency in the decision-making process. Here are the key findings:  E-Participation Can Enhance Transparency and Mutual Understanding: Participants in both low- and high-conflict scenarios indicated that digital participation tools help enhance transparency in decision-making processes. When used effectively, these tools clarify planning criteria, include local knowledge, and improve mutual understanding among stakeholders. Therefore, e-participation tools can help reduce conflict escalation and facilitate creative solutions to complex issues. Digital Tools Aren’t a One-Size-Fits-All Solution: While digital platforms have…

Vibrant abstract pattern of illuminated red LED lights forming a dynamic design.
Articles from Policy & Internet, Democracy, Governance & Security, Policy, Politics & Government

A plot on democracy: has the role of e-petitioning changed with the mainstreaming of conspiracy theories?

Previous article Next article
by Ben Lyall

The emergence of conspiracy theories within petitions is paradoxical: why target these beliefs at the government using an official government channel?

by Ben Lyall
Silhouette of a hand placing a vote into a ballot box, symbolizing democracy.

In an era of increased digitisation, e-petitions have become a popular form of political engagement. However, as the parameters of truth, democracy, false news, and conspiracy are challenged, so too is the original role of parliamentary petitioning. In our article, published in Policy & Internet, my co-author and I argue that the amplification of conspiracy theories shifts the goalposts for e-petitioning in terms of function. Specifically, unlike traditional petitions, they are not primarily aimed at producing policy changes. Instead, they function as social objects that achieve various community outcomes while adhering to petition rules. Signatures on these petitions, although lacking automatic results, signal popularity. Thus, the content of petitions can serve as a platform for airing shared grievances on topics such as immigration, economics, and health—and can even experiment with new forms of communication, such as emojis. As it is known, petitions alone rarely lead to policy changes, though they often reflect public sentiment and can significantly impact protest campaigns or social movements. E-petitions exist in various formats, with private platforms like Change.org being among the most well-known. In Australia, there are different types of e-petitioning, and it’s important to distinguish between them. The first type is private e-petitions, which serve as gathering spaces for individuals united by a common cause. The second type is parliamentary petitions, which can be initiated at either the state or federal level. Parliamentary petitioning is a process entrenched in parliamentary conventions. The petitions committee enforces rules that enable Australian residents and citizens to express concerns to Parliament and has some authority to compel action from government representatives. While rare, there are notable examples of e-petitions that have led to meaningful change. For instance, the Senate inquiry into media diversity, initiated by former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd in 2020, started with e-petitioning. Similarly, changes to teacher education requirements, which received numerous petitions in 2021, are currently being implemented.  Our recent article for Policy & Internet…

Silhouette of a hand placing a vote into a ballot box, symbolizing democracy.
Articles from Policy & Internet, Economics, Governance & Security

Blockchain for better e-governance? Understanding the latest developments in the industry

Previous article Next article
by Dr Maxat Kassen

If the potential of blockchain-driven management is fully realised, what areas in the public, economic, social, political, technological, and business sectors would benefit most?

by Dr Maxat Kassen

The rising popularity of crypto-currencies globally has dramatically increased attention to blockchain technology’s capabilities in advancing peer-to-peer transactions and interactions. Namely, blockchain can promote more agile, cost-effective, and intrinsically data-driven project management practices and decision-making in e-governance. These capabilities are translatable not only to the financial and technological sectors but can also promote more efficient public and corporate sector systems. However, there remains a lack of understanding among practitioners regarding how exactly this digital technology could be fully realised removed from the context of crypto-finances. Furthermore, questions remain in terms of what public and corporate values related to government, business actors and decision-makers could harness in various sectors of the economy as part of the implementation process (e.g. public, corporate, social, political, technological or regulatory ones).  An article I recently published in Policy & Internet, titled “Prospects of Blockchain Governance”, addresses recent developments of blockchain-driven governance in various sectors of the economy. It answers the following questions:  How exactly does blockchain technology work?  How could one illustrate schematically the fundamental principles of its work in a practical way that is easily comprehensible for practitioners and project managers in both corporate and public sectors of the economy? What are the critical features of blockchain-driven project management? Why are they essential for public and corporate decision-makers?  What benefits could the blockchain concept bring to different sectors of the economy?  If the potential of blockchain-driven management is fully realised, what areas in the public, economic, social, political, technological, and business sectors would benefit most? Relying on the analysis of rich empirical data provided by experts in the industry across the globe (i.e. those directly engaged in promoting various related decentralised project management tools for a wide range of public and corporate digital ecosystems), the paper provides insider perspectives on the latest blockchain-driven public and project management advancements. Furthermore, it describes the essence of decentralised data governance, how it is intended to be realised by…

Articles from Policy & Internet, Collective Action, Governance & Security

Is crowdfunding at risk of being weaponized for extremist causes?

Previous article Next article
by Dr Matthew Wade, Assoc. Prof. Michael Walsh, Dr Stephanie Baker

How do crowdfunding sites maintain their legitimacy as ‘open’ platforms while avoiding complicity with divisive, injurious, or even outright violent campaigns?

by Dr Matthew Wade, Assoc. Prof. Michael Walsh, Dr Stephanie Baker

In recent years, far-right and other extremist causes have typically found it difficult to fundraise through online donations. This is largely due to deplatforming efforts, particularly after the 2017 ‘Unite the Right’ rally in Charlottesville, during which a white supremacist killed a young woman. In response, digital platforms and infrastructure companies made concerted efforts to deny extremists access to fundraising tools. Several retaliatory but short‐lived crowdfunding sites were created, such as the antisemitic GoyFundMe and Hatreon (pronounced hate¬reon). These intentionally antagonistic platforms soon became defunct, usually after payment processors and hosting providers refused services. But what about fundraising campaigns where underlying extremist motives are more difficult to discern? Or where a crowdfunding platform stakes its reputation not on careful stewardship of content to avoid complicity in extremist harms but rather on their refusal to make such determinations, instead privileging ‘free speech’ above all other concerns? These dilemmas arose during the 2022 Freedom Convoy, a month-long occupation of downtown Ottawa where hundreds of truck drivers and other participants created blockades that brought the city to a standstill. Though ostensibly assembled to protest vaccine mandates for truckers crossing the Canada‐US border, the protests rapidly evolved into a broader movement against all COVID‐19 mandates. Concerns were heightened by the organizers’ close association with far‐right interests. As the occupiers swelled into the thousands, fears grew that violence could erupt in ways comparable with the January 6 US Capitol insurrection. The Freedom Convoy was supported via crowdfunding, with campaigns on GoFundMe and GiveSendGo raising enormous sums and attracting donors worldwide. Amid criticisms of their complicity in aiding extremism, GoFundMe and GiveSendGo adopted radically different stances, reflecting a growing and concerning divide between ‘Big Tech’ and ‘Alt Tech’ platforms. In our study, ‘Crowdfunding platforms as conduits for ‘ideological struggle and extremism’, we addressed the following questions: How do crowdfunding sites maintain their legitimacy as ‘open’ platforms while avoiding complicity with divisive, injurious, or even outright violent…

Governance & Security

How to Decolonise the State of Policy in the Digital Space

Previous article Next article
by Professor John Hartley

In his latest editorial for Policy and Internet, John Hartley argues that a whole-of-humanity effort to meet the challenges of the ‘digital information space’ is impossible, unless we draw from those who have experienced colonialism.

by Professor John Hartley

In November 2023, the OECD convened a conference in Paris to ‘identify effective policy responses to the urgent challenges’ member countries face in the ‘information space’. It warned: Today, less than a quarter of citizens say they trust their news media and a majority worry that journalists, governments and political leaders purposely mislead them. In this context, the instantaneous and global spread of information, targeted disinformation campaigns that deceive and confuse the public, and rapidly changing media markets pose a fundamental threat to democracies. As the OECD recognises, ‘a new governance model is needed to establish a whole-of-society approach to fight mis- and disinformation and preserve freedom of speech.’  However, as I argued in a Policy and Internet editorial, a whole-of-humanity effort to meet these challenges is impossible to achieve through incumbent political arrangements.  This quagmire is the result of the ‘information space’ of the Internet being riven by enmities and conflict. Purposeful opposition to this digital ‘New World’ is treated as criminal gangsterism. Anyone who is not one of ‘us’ must be one of ‘them’ – an enemy. As per Ronfeldt and Arquilla, there are plenty: China, Russia, Iran, Wikileaks, criminal cartels (hacking, fraud, ransom), along with religious and nationalist ‘terrorists’ (Palestinians, Kurds, or Kashmiri but not Israel, Türkiye, or India). Andreessen adds accelerationist activists for libertarian sovereignty, while Marwick and others include far-right populists and populism.  However, an additional challenge impedes on universally-inclusive efforts. Namely, the privileged status of OECD countries and their nations that is currently being challenged. According to Frydl, people in OECD countries like to think of themselves as affluent, advanced, and mostly white. However, I argue, as life becomes increasing digitalised, these very people are beginning to learn what it feels like to be messed around, their lives harmed and resources farmed by unaccountable external agents that owe no allegiance to anyone. That is, citizens in OECD countries are somewhat learning what colonialism is through challenges to sovereignty and security delivered via the digital ‘information…

Economics, Governance & Security, Mapping, Social Data Science

Mapping Fentanyl Trades on the Darknet

Previous article Next article
by Mark Graham

The US accounts for almost 40% of global darknet trade, with Canada and Australia at 15% and 12%, respectively.

by Mark Graham

My colleagues Joss Wright, Martin Dittus and I have been scraping the world’s largest darknet marketplaces over the last few months, as part of our darknet mapping project. The data we collected allow us to explore a wide range of trading activities, including the trade in the synthetic opioid Fentanyl, one of the drugs blamed for the rapid rise in overdose deaths and widespread opioid addiction in the US. The map shows the global distribution of the Fentanyl trade on the darknet. The US accounts for almost 40% of global darknet trade, with Canada and Australia at 15% and 12%, respectively. The UK and Germany are the largest sellers in Europe with 9% and 5% of sales. While China is often mentioned as an important source of the drug, it accounts for only 4% of darknet sales. However, this does not necessarily mean that China is not the ultimate site of production. Many of the sellers in places like the US, Canada, and Western Europe are likely intermediaries rather than producers themselves. In the next few months, we’ll be sharing more visualisations of the economic geographies of products on the darknet. In the meantime you can find out more about our work by Exploring the Darknet in Five Easy Questions. Follow the project here: https://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/research/projects/economic-geog-darknet/ Twitter: @OiiDarknet

Ethics, Governance & Security, Interviews

Censorship or rumour management? How Weibo constructs “truth” around crisis events

Previous article Next article
by David Sutcliffe

Examining the content moderation strategies of Sina Weibo, China’s largest microblogging platform, in regulating discussion of rumours following the 2015 Tianjin blasts.

by David Sutcliffe

On 12 August 2015, a series of explosions killed 173 people and injured hundreds at a container storage station at the Port of Tianjin. Tianjin Port by Matthias Catón (Flickr CC BY-NC-ND 2.0).

As social media become increasingly important as a source of news and information for citizens, there is a growing concern over the impacts of social media platforms on information quality—as evidenced by the furore over the impact of “fake news”. Driven in part by the apparently substantial impact of social media on the outcomes of Brexit and the US Presidential election, various attempts have been made to hold social media platforms to account for presiding over misinformation, with recent efforts to improve fact-checking. There is a large and growing body of research examining rumour management on social media platforms. However, most of these studies treat it as a technical matter, and little attention has been paid to the social and political aspects of rumour. In their Policy & Internet article “How Social Media Construct ‘Truth’ Around Crisis Events: Weibo’s Rumor Management Strategies after the 2015 Tianjin Blasts”, Jing Zeng, Chung-hong Chan and King-wa Fu examine the content moderation strategies of Sina Weibo, China’s largest microblogging platform, in regulating discussion of rumours following the 2015 Tianjin blasts. Studying rumour communication in relation to the manipulation of social media platforms is particularly important in the context of China. In China, Internet companies are licensed by the state, and their businesses must therefore be compliant with Chinese law and collaborate with the government in monitoring and censoring politically sensitive topics. Given most Chinese citizens rely heavily on Chinese social media services as alternative information sources or as grassroots “truth”, the anti-rumour policies have raised widespread concern over the implications for China’s online sphere. As there is virtually no transparency in rumour management on Chinese social media, it is an important task for researchers to investigate how Internet platforms engage with rumour content and any associated impact on public discussion. We caught up with the authors to discuss their findings: Ed.: “Fake news” is currently a very hot issue, with Twitter and Facebook both…

On 12 August 2015, a series of explosions killed 173 people and injured hundreds at a container storage station at the Port of Tianjin. Tianjin Port by Matthias Catón (Flickr CC BY-NC-ND 2.0).

Economics, Governance & Security, Interviews

Digital platforms are governing systems—so it’s time we examined them in more detail

Previous article Next article
by David Sutcliffe

It’s important that we take a multi-perspective view of the role of digital platforms in contemporary society.

by David Sutcliffe

Digital platforms strongly determine the structure of local interactions with users; essentially representing a totalitarian form of control. Image: Bruno Cordioli (Flickr CC BY 2.0).

Digital platforms are not just software-based media, they are governing systems that control, interact, and accumulate. As surfaces on which social action takes place, digital platforms mediate—and to a considerable extent, dictate—economic relationships and social action. By automating market exchanges they solidify relationships into material infrastructure, lend a degree of immutability and traceability to engagements, and render what previously would have been informal exchanges into much more formalised rules. In his Policy & Internet article “Platform Logic: An Interdisciplinary Approach to the Platform-based Economy”, Jonas Andersson Schwarz argues that digital platforms enact a twofold logic of micro-level technocentric control and macro-level geopolitical domination, while supporting a range of generative outcomes between the two levels. Technology isn’t ‘neutral’, and what designers want may clash with what users want: so it’s important that we take a multi-perspective view of the role of digital platforms in contemporary society. For example, if we only consider the technical, we’ll notice modularity, compatibility, compliance, flexibility, mutual subsistence, and cross-subsidisation. By contrast, if we consider ownership and organisational control, we’ll observe issues of consolidation, privatisation, enclosure, financialisation and protectionism. When focusing on local interactions (e.g. with users), the digital nature of platforms is seen to strongly determine structure; essentially representing an absolute or totalitarian form of control. When we focus on geopolitical power arrangements in the “platform society”, patterns can be observed that are worryingly suggestive of market dominance, colonisation, and consolidation. Concerns have been expressed that these (overwhelmingly US-biased) platform giants are not only enacting hegemony, but are on a road to “usurpation through tech—a worry that these companies could grow so large and become so deeply entrenched in world economies that they could effectively make their own laws.” We caught up with Jonas to discuss his findings: Ed.: You say that there are lots of different ways of considering “platforms”: what (briefly) are some of these different approaches, and why should they be linked up…

Digital platforms strongly determine the structure of local interactions with users; essentially representing a totalitarian form of control. Image: Bruno Cordioli (Flickr CC BY 2.0).

Governance & Security, Interviews, Methods

How policy makers can extract meaningful public opinion data from social media to inform their actions

Previous article Next article
by David Sutcliffe

Examining how the information available on social media can support the actions of politicians and bureaucrats along the policy cycle.

by David Sutcliffe

Social media analysis can provide insight into the mobilisation processes of stakeholders in response to government actions. Image of No-TAV protestors by Darren Johnson (Flickr: CC BY-NC-ND 2.0).

The role of social media in fostering the transparency of governments and strengthening the interaction between citizens and public administrations has been widely studied. Scholars have highlighted how online citizen-government and citizen-citizen interactions favour debates on social and political matters, and positively affect citizens’ interest in political processes, like elections, policy agenda setting, and policy implementation. However, while top-down social media communication between public administrations and citizens has been widely examined, the bottom-up side of this interaction has been largely overlooked. In their Policy & Internet article “The ‘Social Side’ of Public Policy: Monitoring Online Public Opinion and Its Mobilisation During the Policy Cycle,” Andrea Ceron and Fedra Negri aim to bridge the gap between knowledge and practice, by examining how the information available on social media can support the actions of politicians and bureaucrats along the policy cycle. Policymakers, particularly politicians, have always been interested in knowing citizens’ preferences, in measuring their satisfaction and in receiving feedback on their activities. Using the technique of Supervised Aggregated Sentiment Analysis, the authors show that meaningful information on public services, programmes, and policies can be extracted from the unsolicited comments posted by social media users, particularly those posted on Twitter. They use this technique to extract and analyse citizen opinion on two major public policies (on labour market reform and school reform) that drove the agenda of the Matteo Renzi cabinet in Italy between 2014 and 2015. They show how online public opinion reacted to the different policy alternatives formulated and discussed during the adoption of the policies. They also demonstrate how social media analysis allows monitoring of the mobilisation and de-mobilisation processes of rival stakeholders in response to the various amendments adopted by the government, with results comparable to those of a survey and a public consultation that were undertaken by the government. We caught up with the authors to discuss their findings: Ed.: You say that this form of opinion…

Social media analysis can provide insight into the mobilisation processes of stakeholders in response to government actions. Image of No-TAV protestors by Darren Johnson (Flickr: CC BY-NC-ND 2.0).

Close Menu