Civicist

CIVIC TECH NEWS & ANALYSIS
Categories
First Post

GATE-CRASHING

GATE-CRASHING

Netroots Nation gets back to its unruly roots, shouting down O’Malley and Sanders; how NASA got good at social media; and more.

  • Over the weekend at Netroots Nation, activists with #BlackLivesMatter, the Dream Defenders, and the Black Alliance for Just Immigration interrupted the conference’s presidential town hall session with candidates Martin O’Malley and Bernie Sanders. As David Dayen reports for the New Republic, neither candidate rose to the occasion, presumably because they expected a traditional Democratic party event rather than a democratic power protest.

  • Netroots Nation, which was originally the Yearly Kos conference, has its roots in the unruly outsiders who “crashed the gates” of the Democratic establishment in the mid-2000s, but in recent years it has gotten much more professionalized, like a trade show for the liberal-left. This weekend’s events mark a shift back toward movement politics. And as Chris Savage of Michigan’s Electablog recounts, the confrontation during the town hall session was a “teachable moment” for white progressives.

  • BuzzFeed’s editor in chief Ben Smith looks under the hood of the escalating conflict between New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio and Uber and sees “a high-stakes confrontation that will absorb his mayoralty and define the politics of Uber and its lesser-known siblings in the flexible, insecure new economy.” He reports that City Hall thinks the cap on Uber’s expansion in NYC, likely to be voted into law tomorrow, is a “boutique side issue” that only a “small set of excited tech people who are reading Mashable” care about, but warns that Uber has unlimited cash and will spend it to chip away at his popularity.

  • Here’s De Blasio in Saturday’s Daily News explaining how he sees the stakes in the Uber fight. He writes: “When you consider what’s at stake—from ensuring workers can make a decent living, to managing the surge of more than 2,000 new cars on our streets every month, to protecting consumers from overcharges, to making sure we have more accessible vehicles for New Yorkers with disabilities—it’s our responsibility to act.”

  • One sign that the fight is escalating: Uber’s chief strategist David Plouffe tweets last night: “Things are not on the level at NYC’s City Hall. Wasn’t the City Council told this was all about “congestion”? Not anymore.”

  • In the wake of a recent California Labor Commission ruling deeming an Uber driver as a company employee, and facing several similar lawsuits about its own workers, cleaning services company Homejoy has announced it is shutting down, Carmel DeAmicis reports for Re/Code.

  • Of the 34,340 people who gave money to Barack Obama’s 2012 campaign and have also given in 2016, Senator Bernie Sanders has received donations from nearly 25,000 of them while Hillary Clinton has received support from just over 9,000 of them, data-mining firm Crowdpac has found, David Catanese reports for US News.

  • Senate candidates Russ Feingold of Wisconsin and Kamala Harris of California are proving that the Senate doesn’t have to live in the digital dark ages: they are voluntarily filing their campaign finance reports electronically, reports Michael Beckel of the Center for Public Integrity. (h/t Adam Smith)

  • Quartz’s Adam Epstein reports on how NASA learned to get good at social media. It’s a lovely case study, but it reads as if NASA didn’t do anything social or participatory until Twitter came along and a communications staffer, Veronica McGregor, made the spur of the moment decision to start an account for the Mars lander. In fact, as Jeanne Holm, who was then the agency’s chief knowledge architect, once told me, it was the 2003 Space Shuttle Columbia disaster that showed NASA that it had a distributed network of volunteers (thousands helped collect and map the debris that landed across several states) and fans (the agency had just launched a new website and many people left heartfelt sympathy messages). Those realizations led to a wholesale shift in how NASA engages the public, the fruits of which we now see.

  • An ex-Google employee who now works for Slack, Erica Baker, says a crowdsourced salary spreadsheet that she and some coworkers started “got reshared all over the place” leading to discoveries about pay discrimination, some more equitable shifts in pay, as well as grumpiness from her managers, Kristen Brown reports for Fusion.

  • LinkedIn CEO Reid Hoffman says self-driving autonomous cars shouldn’t just be allowed, they should be “mandatory in the vast majority of spaces.”

  • WikiLeaks’ Julian Assange tells Der Spiegel that since the site’s launch of a “next generation submission system” the site is “drowning in material now.”

  • New York City’s Big Apps competition launched Thursday night at Civic Hall with a focus on affordable housing, zero waste, connected cities and civic engagement, reports Miranda Neubauer for Capital NY.

  • With Greece’s formal economy collapsing, an informal “solidarity economy” appears to be growing, experimenting with alternative currencies to manage bartering and time banks, reports Emma Graham-Harrison for The Guardian. She notes, “There are many projects whose obsolete websites stand as the only memorials to their founders’ dreams, ranging from a project for unemployed young people in Athens to the votsalo (pebble) currency,” whose failure she reports in detail.

Categories
First Post

UBERTOOL

UBERTOOL

Uber uses app as advocacy platform; Georgia, Argentina, and Mexico are tougher campaign finance regulators than the US; and more.

  • Many tech companies are reluctant to use their platforms directly for political purposes. Think of what it took for Google to decide to make its homepage “go dark” to protest SOPA/PIPA. Not so Uber, which has just added a “DE BLASIO” button for its app users in New York City that takes them to a page promising long delays on their service if New York’s mayor and city council isn’t stopped from putting a temporary cap on the number of new cars Uber can add to its base. As Bloomberg News notes, this isn’t the first time the company has made such a move.

  • Here’s the petition site that Uber is driving users to. The city council is expected to vote next week on the bill. According to the New York Times, Uber execs met with the mayor and other top officials this week and made clear that they wouldn’t accept a higher cap, leading first deputy mayor Anthony Shorris to say that the company’s opposition to regulation seemed like “some kind of religious issue.”

  • In the New York Times, Michael Barbaro and Ashley Parker trace how many of the presidential candidates, from Jeb Bush to Rand Paul to Hillary Clinton, are navigating the debate over Uber, and by extension, the changing nature of work today. The comments on Bush’s post on LinkedIn yesterday attempting to position himself as a disruptive innovator suggest that he isn’t in the best position, historically, to claim such a role for himself.

  • So far, claims by the leading presidential candidates that they are garnering huge grassroots support are not borne out by their actual small-donor fundraising, Kenneth Vogel and Tarini Parti report for Politico.

  • Less than 1/5 of Hillary Clinton’s campaign funds have come in amounts of $200 or less, the proverbial small-donor threshold, and the reason may well be this: fewer than 100,000 of the 2.5 million email addresses garnered by her 2008 campaign were still active, as Nicholas Confessore and Maggie Haberman report for the New York Times.

  • The countries of Georgia, Argentina, Costa Rica, and Mexico all score higher than the United States in terms of how stringently they regulate campaign finance, according to this new global analysis of 54 countries conducted by Global Integrity, the Sunlight Foundation and the Electoral Integrity Project. In terms of actual, practical enforcement of their laws, the United Kingdom comes out way ahead of everyone else.

  • Read former Reddit CEO Ellen Pao’s powerful commentary on the challenges of online free speech, and then ponder the choice of her Washington Post editors to title it “The trolls are winning the battle for the internet.” As I read Pao, that’s exactly the opposite of what she believes.

  • Alex Howard reports on the fun argument that broke out between Clay Johnson and Eric Mill (former colleagues at the Sunlight Foundation’s Labs) over whether the launch of Democracy.io (noted here yesterday) is a good thing. Johnson thinks really solving the problem of email and Congress requires making software that “helps Members of Congress receive and sort through their messages.” Mill says that that burden is on Congress, and enabling more people to participate in communicating with their representatives is a good thing. Otherwise, one just ensures “that Congress is never made uncomfortable.” As Howard says, “both men have a point.”

  • New from Accela’s Mark Headd on Civicist: Why 18F’s new approach to procurement reform matters.

  • Related: We’re holding a “Symposium on Innovative Procurement” next Tuesday, July 21 at Civic Hall with NYC CTO Minerva Tantoco, Kevin Ryan of Gilt, former HHS CTO (and Civic Hall senior fellow) Bryan Sivak, Gino Menchini of National Strategies, Scott Anderson of Control Group, Mark Headd, and many more. Register here.

  • In Medium, Alana Hope Levinson explores the “new pink ghetto” of newsrooms: the job of social media editor, which is disproportionately held by women, asking if it is genuinely a stepping stone to other jobs or a repeat of women being delegated to supporting roles in journalism.

  • On TechCrunch, Jennifer Vento, the managing director of Women Online (and longtime PDM colleague and friend), writes about the rise and spread of Femhack, a grassroots international feminist hackathon inspired by the life and work of Pakistani activist Sabeen Mahmud.

  • Wanna get to know Civic Hall’s incoming project director Erin Simpson, who is starting with us next month? Check out this exit interview she just did with Microsoft Chicago, where she has been a technology and civic engagement fellow.

  • Ah, if only this were true (those of you who have been to Personal Democracy Forum will appreciate the joke).

Categories
First Post

AFFORDANCES

AFFORDANCES

A White House program to bring cheap or free internet to 275,000 homes; China censorship watchdog criticizes LinkedIn; and more.

  • The White House is making a push on the digital divide, launching a new pilot program called ConnectHome that will bring free or cheap internet service from a range of participating companies to 275,000 homes in 27 cities, Issie Lapowsky reports for Wired. “About half of low-income kids in the U.S. have no web access at home,” she notes.

  • A new infographic from the White House illustrates the depth of the problem. Unfortunately, getting another 275,000 homes online will barely put a dent in it.

  • Lapowsky also reports for Wired on how the U.S. Digital Service is working to “make the immigration process suck less.”

  • Following in Hillary Clinton’s footsteps, Jeb Bush’s campaign has announced that it will release the names of its big money bundlers too, Nicholas Confessore reports for the New York Times.

  • Money from billionaires and millionaires is dominating the financing of nearly all the presidential campaigns, reports Bloomberg News’ Zachary Mider.

  • Speaking of which, leading Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump says his net worth has risen more than $1 billion, to more than $10 billion, since he declared his candidacy, citing rising real estate values, Gerry Mullaney reports for the New York Times.

  • Bernie Sanders and Ben Carson are the only presidential candidates raising most of their money from small (under $200) donors, Jonathan Topaz reports for Politico.

  • This is civic tech: The Electronic Frontier Foundation has released Democracy.io, a new tool that makes emailing congressional lawmakers as simple as a one-click process that was inspired by the Participatory Politics Foundation and assisted with open-source Congressional contact data from the Sunlight Foundation. Said EFF Tech Fellow Sina Khanifar, who helped develop the tool, “Advocacy organizations that can afford it have long had access to tools for delivering bulk constituent messages, but those solutions are expensive for regular citizens. Democracy.io helps to fill in that gap by giving people an easy way to have their voices are heard in Washington.”

  • New York City is rolling out its update to the city’s open data law with a primary goal of making it easier for regular people to access information, Capital NY’s Miranda Neubauer reports. She notes, “As part of the roll-out, the city will be highlighting how to easily visualize data sets from the open data portal using a tool called Data Lens, initially for selected data on universal pre-K locations, restaurant locations, 311 service requests, NYPD motor vehicle collisions, and wi-fi hotspot locations.”

  • Judging from this story in The Mandarin by Craig Thomler, this year’s GovHack in Australia, an annual event started in 2009, was a huge success with more than 1800 participants across 31 locations (including 6 in neighboring New Zealand). Some of the more intriguing projects include “Can you afford to speed” (a mobile app that shows drivers the fines other speeders have been charged along the route they are driving) and “MineCraft your city” (a topographically accurate map of Canberra that can be explored or played with for city planning purposes).

  • Tom Trewinnard and An Xioa Mina from Meedan share some tips on how to avoid translation problems in real-time news. This is for anyone who has ever struggled with Google Translate.

  • Greatfire.org, which fights online censorship in China, takes a whack at LinkedIn’s Reid Hoffman and Jeff Weiner for cozying up to the regime.

  • Alex Alsup of Detroit’s civic hacking company Loveland Technologies explains why they’ve stopped using Google Street View for their amazing parcel-by-parcel map of the city’s beleaguered properties and instead switched to Microsoft Bing’s Bird’s Eye view. Apparently Loveland’s base map uses Open Street Map, and an email from Google told them they couldn’t combine Street View images with non-Google maps.

  • Next City’s Jen Kinney reports on Credit Explorer, a new app released by Philadelphia’s Water Department to help encourage residents to conserve more.

  • The good folks at Public Lab (on whose board I serve) are looking for some volunteers to join its “oil testing kit beta.” Get a free kit and help advance citizen science!

  • Public Agenda, a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to helping leaders and citizens navigate divisive, complex issues and work together on solutions, is looking to hire a new director of public engagement programs.

Categories
First Post

BLOGGED DOWN

BLOGGED DOWN

A eulogy for the ways things were before social media took over; should Reddit be turned into a workers’ coop?; and more.

  • Hossein Derakhshan, aka “Hoder,” who was once known as Iran’s “blogfather” for his influence on the online scene there in the early aughts, and who spent six years in prison for blogging, now writes a heartbreaking reflection on Medium on how much he, and we, have collectively lost in the web’s rapid transformation from blogging and hyperlinking to social media mongering. Just read the whole thing.

  • Speaking of the rise of social media: 63 percent of Twitter and Facebook users say that each platform serves as a source of news, a new Pew Research Center/Knight Foundation report finds. But Twitter news users are more attentive to news about national government and politics, international affairs, business and sports. Meanwhile, Facebook users are slightly more likely to post and comment about government and politics.

  • The New York Times media columnist Farhad Manjoo suggests that Reddit be turned into a workers’ coop where moderators can be rewarded with stock options, building on a proposal from Reddit board member Sam Altman. Why stop at Reddit?

  • On the other hand, Sam Biddle of Gawker argues, pretty convincingly, that Reddit “can’t be saved” from the rampant misogyny and abusive behavior of its core users, however much they dress it up as “free speech.”

  • Union Square Ventures’ Albert Wenger says that Hillary Clinton’s reference to needing better jobs and workplace protections in the age of the “gig economy” needs a completely different frame, focused on a universal basic income and informational freedom.

  • If you are wondering why Clinton’s campaign is asking her supporters to send her their birth dates, it’s so they can better integrate data about them, Derek Willis of the New York Times explains.

  • The Intercept’s Micah Lee explains in step-by-step detail, how to communicate securely online “in a way that’s private, secret and anonymous.”

  • Here’s a fantastic in-depth “blueprint for designing hackathons” written byJeanne Brooks and Lam Thuy Vo, drawn from their experience organizing Hacking Journalism events.

  • More than 95 percent of the 220,000 individual requests to Google under the “right to be forgotten” provision have come from ordinary members of the public rather than high-profile public figures, The Guardian’s Sylvia Tippman and Julia Powles report. They note, “The data, which has not been revealed publicly until now, was found during an analysis of archived versions of Google’s transparency report and details the numeric breakdown of each request and associated link by country and issue type. The underlying source code has since been updated to remove these details.”

  • This is civic tech: Our Jessica McKenzie reports on DataLook’s “Data for Good” replication marathon, which is underway now and aimed at getting civic hackers to adopt successful projects from around the world and replicate them in their own cities and states. Interestingly, they’re using an open Slack channel to coordinate the effort.

  • Microsoft’s Technology and Civic Innovation team in New York sums up its first year, and while I’m obviously biased (Microsoft is one of the founding sponsors of Civic Hall), I must say it’s a pretty impressive set of accomplishments.

  • The White House is holding a “Demo Day” on August 4th focused on tech inclusiveness, CTO Megan Smith announced during a conference in Aspen.

Categories
Civic Hacking Data Science open data

USING SLACK TO RUN A “DATA FOR GOOD” REPLICATION MARATHON

USING SLACK TO RUN A “DATA FOR GOOD” REPLICATION MARATHON

The founder of a Hacker News-style site for data for social good projects says that there is not enough replication in the civic hacking community, and he means to change that.

A year after launching DataLook, a Hacker News-style site highlighting data projects for social good, Tobias Pfaff and his colleagues are spearheading a 10-week replication marathon of some of the site’s top reusable projects in advance of a TEDx competition they qualified for this spring. Participants are finding each other and collaborating on Slack, although if it makes more sense to take problem solving to outside sites—Github’s issue tracker, for example—they are encouraged to do that as well.

“I think there is not enough focus on replicating projects [in the civic tech community],” founder Tobias Pfaff tells Civicist in a Skype interview. “I think it might be less sexy to do things that other people have done before.”

However, Pfaff also points out that replicating projects can be faster and easier than starting an open data project from scratch. Replication, he says, “can be super sexy” because you can get things done—and start having an impact—quickly. He points Civicist to Jason Hibbets’ framework for civic hackers, which outlines three kinds of projects: green fields (new and untested); cloned (tested, approved, and repeated); and augmented (tested and improved upon).

One successful and much-discussed replication is the late U.S. Politwoops, a transparency project documenting politicians’ deleted tweets, which was based on a project first launched in the Netherlands in 2010. The service recently made headlines after Twitter pulled its API access for violating terms of service. However, other iterations of Politwoops continue to run smoothly in 30 other countries.

The first project replicated as part of DataLook’s marathon was a Twitter bot that automatically posts information about animals up for adoption at local shelters. The person behind it, Slack user justnisdead, says that future replications would only take 15-30 minutes per bot.

DataLook’s goal for the marathon is to demonstrate the impact that replication can have in just 10 weeks, and then to challenge the TEDx judges to imagine what they could accomplish if the marathon was extended to a year or more.

DataLook (originally Data for Good, until they found that name was already a registered trademark in the U.S.) was built during a startup weekend in Germany last year. It was always meant to be a home for replicable data for good projects, however in the year since Pfaff has found that the user base is really too small for a robust upvote/downvote-style site. There just isn’t enough traffic.

(He speculated this might be because many of the major players in the civic tech scene—Code for America, for example—are hosting many of these conversations in private or semi-private/branded spaces, and that others are spread out on various platforms like Reddit and DataTau.)

And yet Pfaff and his DataLook colleagues know many of the projects on the site are worth replicating. “A month ago,” Pfaff says, “we went through our complete database and discussed which [projects] are really cool and which are reusable…[which solve] generic problems that appear in every city around the world and at the same time the code is open source.” These are the projects they pulled out for a shortlist, and are actively encouraging data scientists to replicate during the marathon. The shortlist of projects includes Councilmatic; FixMyStreet; a food inspection forecasting app; Link-SF, a resource for homeless and low-income city residents; and more.

DataLook has asked encouraging interested parties to join an open Slack channel and find the projects that most interest them and connect with likeminded people. There are currently twenty or so members of the general DataLook channel.

Pfaff makes clear that the end of the marathon is not meant to be the end of replicating projects, but that the purpose of the marathon is “to see what is possible within a given timeframe.”

“And then we can see what happens next,” he adds.

Categories
Direct Action movements organizing

FLAGGED DOWN AND RISING UP

FLAGGED DOWN AND RISING UP

After more than a decade of life in the Networked Age, the long-standing imbalance in American public life around race and gender is being reset.

In just three weeks, the call to take the Confederate flag down from the grounds of South Carolina’s capital went from a hashtag and an e-petition to conclusive legislative action. Last week’s vote by the state legislature was the result of many converging forces and trends: the rise of a new generation of Southern elected officials more attuned to the needs of global commerce than local tradition; the increasing sensitivity of many American corporate leaders to social issues; the frequently demonstrated capacity of modern social justice movements to attack and damage corporate brands using digitally-powered campaigns; and the emergence of a much more robust, youth-driven and leaderful civil rights movement powered by networked media.

Beneath the surface, a big shift is underway. Voices long ignored and issues long marginalized are forcing their way into the larger mainstream, changing the very meaning of what is mainstream in the process. And this isn’t because the number of police killings of blacks has suddenly increased, or the number of state-sanctioned Confederate memorials suddenly jumped, producing more protest. The wounds of white supremacy in America remain as hurtful and unhealed as before today. But after more than a decade of life in the Networked Age, where open and connected media is almost ubiquitous, the long-standing imbalance in American public life around race and gender is inexorably being reset.

An almost hydraulic force is at work. In the same way that the underground water table punches through the earth’s surface wherever the ground gets more permeable, the undercurrents of America’s less powerful classes are finding their release through the new open media system fostered by the internet, even as they remain less visible on legacy media and in corporate suites. As Dante Barry, the co-founder and executive director of Million Hoodies for Justice said at Personal Democracy Forum a month ago, “The open internet puts the pop in popular uprising. Popular uprisings require a platform that allow the many to speak to the many, all at once…the potential of the internet is in decentralizing who can drive governance in this country.”

Online, we can see the surge. In 2012, the membership of Color of Change, the leading online organizing group focused on racial justice, grew by 4.8 percent; in 2013 it grew by 3.8 percent. In 2014, it grew a whopping 38 percent. Now, says its executive director Rashad Robinson, Color of Change has 1.3 million members, and not only are they more actively engaged than in the past, they are also giving more.

MoveOn.org, which has a much bigger and whiter membership base of around 8 million, reports that the two fastest growing petitions in its history, in terms of how quickly they hit half a million signatures, were their recent one responding to the Charleston massacre with a call to take down the Confederate flag across the state, and an earlier one from the NAACP that it elevated after the George Zimmerman verdict in the Trayvon Martin killing. Close to one-third of the people who signed the post-Charleston petition were new to MoveOn.

Says Anna Galland, MoveOn’s executive director, “It feels like the last two years is really one long civil rights moment—with Trayvon as the launch point. If I look at the combination of the Zimmerman petition and this (ongoing) moment around the confederate flag, we’ve added something like hundreds of thousands of new members around our work on civil rights.”

She adds, “Clearly our petition was building on years of organizing and advocacy and groundwork that was laid by groups including the NAACP and others. I see this as one of those moments where an online petition served as an important accelerator—there was an opening, and the widespread outrage online absolutely helped encourage public officials like Mitt Romney and Jeb Bush and the Republican state legislators who promised to introduce legislation to take down the flag.”

Behind the big vehicles of national online campaigns are a penumbra of smaller actions expanding all over the country. A scan of both group’s platforms show literally hundreds of petitions on racial justice issues ranging from ending the veneration of Confederate symbols to demanding police accountability and economic opportunity. And Black Twitter is becoming a major force in nurturing these actions. As scholar Kimberly Ellis puts it, “#BlackTwitter is here to stay and is only growing increasingly more powerful since its emergence in 2009, when the Pew Research Study chose to highlight this phenomenon of overrepresentation of Black usage of Twitter far beyond its representative population in the United States.”

Broadening the Mainstream

To get a sense of how big a shift we are seeing, I spoke to two early African-American online activists, Chris Rabb, who ran the Afro-Netizen email list and blog from 1999 to 2009, and Cheryl Contee, the co-founder (with Baratunde Thurston) of Jack & Jill Politics, a political blog started in 2006 that joined forces with Elon James White’s This Week in Blackness in 2013. At its height, Afro-Netizen had about 10,000 people on its list-serve; Jack & Jill Politics hit about 600,000-700,000 monthly unique visitors at its height. While relatively small compared to the kinds of numbers we see today, both were vital early networking hubs for people of color hungry for meaningful political content online.

Years ago, Rabb told me that he didn’t think African-Americans would take to social networking in the same way that white bloggers were, because they needed to feel safe in sharing their concerns online. And indeed, when Contee and Thurston started Jack & Jill Politics, they both chose pseudonyms (Jack Turner and Jill Tubman, referencing early abolitionists) because it really wasn’t safe at all to be an outspoken black blogger. For Rabb that was somewhat less of a concern because he had a plethora of political connections on Capitol Hill, which in his words “led to a virtuous circle of validation.”

But those days are ending, Rabb and Contee both told me. “More people of color with more perspectives are adding their voices to the fray in an individual manner, not requiring brands, like Afro-Netizen and Jack and Jill Politics,” Rabb says. “What mattered more [back then] was our individual networks. Sharing AfroNetizen content was far more labor intensive,” he adds. Indeed, running Afro-Netizen was so time-consuming that when he started writing his book Invisible Capitalin part inspired by his own experience parlaying his connections into digital capital—he set it aside.

“What enabled me at least to stop using a pseudonym,” Contee says, “was the external validation we began to receive and seeing how large the community became. It became more difficult to represent and organize that community behind a pseudonym and I think others found that true as well.” She adds, “And while I and others like me have experienced some negativity and hacking online, no one has actually been killed or had their careers destroyed yet from speaking up online.”

Rabb points out that the over-representation of African-Americans in terms of mobile phone use, texting and Twitter usage has contributed greatly to the shift. “Now there’s a critical mass of black folk where there’s more of a sense of support, where your voice is not going to be the only voice. There’s some sense of protection and community that didn’t exist ten years ago.” Rashad Robinson of Color of Change agrees, but he puts it slightly differently: “You can be engaged in debate and conversation [online] with people having your back. But it’s not so much about safety as it is about having power.”

Contee and Rabb also both see a bigger culture change underway. Says Contee, “The overall sophistication of users…during the six years in which we ran Jack and Jill Politics has increased dramatically. It’s easy to see the impact of JJP and blogs like it in terms of the way that people talk online and present their opinions—with transparency, boldness, directness, irreverence with few sacred cows.” Rabb concurs, noting, “Now I see so many strong voices from people of color who aren’t necessarily mainstream which is great, and so the mainstream is broadening.”  

Up to a point. Rabb, for one, said that he still thinks about when to share something publicly versus only sharing within his Facebook friends circle. “When people express views that press against institutional racism or imperial capitalism,” he notes, “then there’s a real chance of reprisals that can be symbolic, personal, political, and professional.” He adds, “I’m still a black guy who travels and can be found on Google and I don’t want to be killed.”

It would also be a mistake to interpret the success of recent racial justice petitions on MoveOn’s platform as a sign that the larger white liberal community that it enfolds is ready for more systemic change. As Robinson admits, “We test other issues, more systemic issues, with MoveOn members and they just don’t perform well. They can’t go deep on stop-and-frisk or systemic racism,” he says of his MoveOn allies. He adds, speaking of the white liberal-left, “#TakeItDown is a victory but are we any closer to those people talking about the funding model for public education? Or really pushing for voting rights legislation? Or addressing the funding models in our cities around criminal justice?”

The question of what comes next as the symbolic power of Confederate culture melts down remains hanging in the air. On the one hand, it’s really a change when a Republican governor like Robert Bentley of Alabama preemptively orders his state to stop hoisting the Confederate flag and declares, “A flag is not worth a job.” (Recall the late George Bush adviser Lee Atwater, who memorably described the GOP’s southern strategy as going from shouting “n—-r, n—-r” to more abstract stuff like “state’s rights” and cutting taxes, but with the same racist intention.) On the other hand, as Robinson points out, “We win on the Confederate flag but then we have a bunch of really bad jobs for black people in the South. So we’re working on campaigns on Walmart and the auto plants in the South.” 

To be sure, fights on economic issues are much harder than flag wars. But I can’t help but think that, like the giant snow farm still sitting in Boston’s Seaport District, the residue of last winter’s massive snowfalls, white America is melting slowly into the ground. There’s a hard core of ice up there in Boston that is still frozen solid, and it’s even got its own micro-climate that keeps refreezing some of the water coming off the top of the heap. But the mass is breaking down, and so are some of the hardest ingrained symbols of white supremacy in America.

To be honest, I never thought I’d live to see Southern states like South Carolina and Alabama move to officially discard their Confederate flags. And yet, the day is here.

Categories
Analytics Media

Parsing Upworthy’s Big Pivot

Parsing Upworthy’s Big Pivot

Equating Upworthy with clickbait has always obscured the real secret to their success: the company is among the web’s most deft practitioners of sophisticated analytics.

  • Since launching in 2012, Upworthy has done a few things very well.

    Upworthy perfected the socially-optimized “curiosity gap” headline. This was both a blessing and a curse—the site attracts around 20 million unique visitors per month, but it is synonymous with clickbait, an image they haven’t quite been able to shake even after shifting away from those thoroughly unloved headlines.

    Upworthy mastered curating the web—finding high-quality content with bad headlines, then tinkering with the framing to give it better headlines and help it find an audience. That has been Upworthy’s niche for the past three years. But that’s changed now that Amy O’Leary, formerly of the New York Times, has taken the helm as Editorial Director. Now, Upworthy is producing its own 5,000 word articles about the fast food industry. Its staffers are called “editors” instead of “curators.” This week, O’Leary released a new report on “Upworthy’s Editorial Vision,” which helps to define this pivot in Upworthy’s content strategy.

    As the company transitions to content creation, it’s worth asking what makes Upworthy different. Equating Upworthy with clickbait has always obscured the real secret to their success.

    It isn’t the clickbait headlines. Plenty of imitators picked up on Upworthy’s rhetorical stylings, leading Peter Koechley to announce “sorry we kind of broke the internet last year” at The Guardian’s 2015 Changing Media Summit. In fact, Upworthy has been moving away from “you won’t believe what happened next”-style headlines for years. They started using those headlines because they tested well. Then everyone else started using the same headlines. Then users got tired of them. So they didn’t test so well anymore, and Upworthy’s style shifted.

    In fact, “clickbait” doesn’t do justice to Upworthy’s viral model. The point of Upworthy was never to maximize clicks. It was to maximize shares. If people click on a headline and are disappointed with what they find, they generate a single page-view. (That’s nice if you have an advertising-based business model. Upworthy doesn’t, and never has). If people click on the headline and like what they find, then they’re more likely to share that piece of content through Facebook and Twitter. And that’s how the audience grows and progressive messages break out of their Filter Bubbles.

    It isn’t Facebook optimization. Facebook is the main driver of online news traffic today. Companies used to focus on “search engine optimization,” reasoning that the way people find anything new online is through google searches. Today, companies focus more on social optimization, recognizing that the balance of online power has shifted. But Facebook can be a cruel master. Tweaks to the Facebook algorithm can send your traffic plummeting. If you are too successful at generating traffic through Facebook, the site might just decide to duplicate your model and bring that traffic in-house.

    It isn’t the content itself. Part of what has made Upworthy different from its copycats is the focus on substantive content with a progressive bent. Upworthy, so to speak, is people. Hiring the right curators with the right taste and judgment has been a core element of finding and shepherding share-worthy social content. But that content has always come from mining the web. All of Upworthy’s top hits have come from some other media producer.

    No, what makes Upworthy special is their approach to analytics. Tracking the right data, thinking about data, and using data correctly has always been the thing they get more right than anyone else.

    Analytics was at the core of their initial launch. Eli Pariser and his team realized that simple A/B headline testing (the same type of testing that he’d done for years as Executive Director of MoveOn) could help build a massive audience for important stories that simply had never been framed right.

    Analytics was what drove them to clickbait. (Except it was actually sharebait.)

    And then analytics was what drove them away from clickbait. In February 2014, Upworthy stopped focusing on pageviews and unique visitors and started focusing on “attention minutes.”  

    The switch from pageviews to attention minutes is emblematic of what sets Upworthy apart from its competitors. Everyone uses some form of analytics these days. It’s relatively simple to measure pageviews, clicks, retweets, and shares. Analytics is basically how we keep score in modern-day journalism.

    But all this digital data can easily lead you astray, particularly if you’re measuring the wrong thing. Optimizing for pageviews leads to a bunch of stupid slideshows. Optimizing for clicks leads to curiosity-gap headlines, regardless of the story they link to. Optimizing for fundraising leads to an endless string of dire warnings.

    Take a look at slides 17-20 in O’Leary’s slide deck. Upworthy has spent a year and a half gathering rich data on attention minutes from tens of millions of visitors. That’s data they have and their copycats don’t. And now they’re starting to use that data for their own storytelling. Whatever happens next, they’ll monitor, listen, and learn, and adapt.

    The hard part of the new digital journalism isn’t the math or the software code that drives analytics and A/B testing. The hard part is figuring out what the right metrics are. Focus on the easy stuff and you’ll create a powerful engine driving you inevitably towards irrelevance. The center of Upworthy’s big pivot is a focus on the hard parts of analytics. That focus drove them to be the social web’s biggest curators. Now it will drive them as the social web’s latest content creators.

Categories
Civic Hacking Civic Tech Direct Action

Volunteer Coders Force the Dept Of Education to Actually Help Debtors

Volunteer Coders Force the Dept Of Education to Actually Help Debtors

When it comes to making conned students aware of their right to seek debt discharges, and providing the means for them to apply for that discharge, the Department of Education’s technology is essentially nonexistent.

  • This March saw the launch of a web application that makes it easy for victims of predatory colleges to request student debt forgiveness from the Department of Education. For the first time ever, debtors were able to exercise their right to apply for student debt cancellation on their mobile phones. More than 300 applications flowed in that first week. But this website wasn’t built by the government; it was built by volunteers with the Debt Collective, including myself, in less than a month. The Secretary of Education Arne Duncan frequently touts the virtues of tech, but in so far as modernizing how the agency actually helps current and former college students, the heavy-lifting has been forced onto the backs of students, debtors, and volunteers.

    THE NEED

    As the total college student debt burden reaches $1.3 trillion, an offshoot of Occupy Wall Street called Strike Debt found that tuition-free education at all public two- and four-year colleges could be achieved with just $15 billion in new spending. Meanwhile, the government is expected to profit from student debt repayments to the tune of $127 billion over the next ten years. To make matters worse, student loans are unique from other kinds of household debt in that they cannot be discharged by bankruptcy. They are nearly impossible to get out from under, even in the most dire of circumstances. With these revelations, it seems true that some or all of this debt is morally illegitimate, and action is needed to give relief to these debtors.

    One of the only existing safety nets for millions of student debtors is the Higher Education Act, which gives the Department of Education authority to cancel debt when a school violates state law. But for many years the Department’s website had little to no information on how to dispute debt, let alone an online application to do so. The process was an uphill, seemingly impossible battle for debtors. That is, it was until this year, when a small group of volunteers at the Debt Collective decided to do something radical: the government’s job.

    For years, hundreds of thousands of students have found themselves scammed by predatory for-profit colleges. Corinthian Colleges, Inc., was one of the largest and most notorious of these chains. It was clear from multiple government actions and investigations, dating as early as 2007, that Corinthian was rife with deceptive and unfair business practices—from false job placement statisticssecurities fraud, to the unlawful use of military seals in advertisements. Despite this, the Department of Education continued to collect on the debt of scammed students, students Secretary Duncan admitted left Corinthian Colleges “in a worse position than when they started.”

    After months of watching the Department of Education do nothing, while hearing story after story of lives ruined by unpayable debt, our team at the Debt Collective decided to make a move. With help from some amazing lawyers, we began to craft a process to dispute students’ debt. Law student Luke Herrine spent hours coordinating our strategy with a team of legal experts, creating a multi-page application form that affected and eligible debtors would need to fill out by hand. In the form, each debtor needed to cite the specific legalese appropriate for their state. It wasn’t even clear that the Department would recognize the forms as legitimate—no one had ever done this sort of thing at scale before, and the Department had little-to-no information on their website. With an entirely paper-based and manual method, our first, ambitious goal was to submit 50 applications—one for each state.

    THE APPLICATION

    As the Facebook groups for former Corinthian students grew larger, it became clear that the goal of 50 Defense to Repayment applications was not enough. We wanted to dispute the debt for as many debtors as possible.

     

    Karissa McKelvey (left) and Ange Tran (Ann Larson)

    Karissa McKelvey (left) and
    Ange Tran (Photo courtesy Karissa McKelvey)

    Designer Ange Tran suggested we make a “wizard”—an application that walks debtors through each section of the long legal form. Tran had previously created a similar solution to automate sending letters for pro-solar policy advocacy in New York State. But years later, with a solid tech team and a large group of debtors in solidarity, our new application could take the concept further with mobile-first validated design, data-driven progress dashboards, and secure data storage. It needed to be built fast, too—as every day without a submission system meant another day of financial hardship and debt collector harassment for hundreds of thousands of debtors.

    Our online form had to enable a debtor to submit a variety of information about themselves: sensitive data, such as their social security number, birthdate, and address; state law(s) broken by the school that would fall under the Defense to Repayment provision (that changed based upon the state the student had lived in); and supporting materials, such as their story or evidence of abuses. Making people fill out a PDF directly using Acrobat would lead to a substantially lower conversion rate. Many don’t have access to a desktop or laptop computer, become overwhelmed by long forms, or have limited time with their busy schedules.

    The website had to be easy to read—checkboxes needed to hide away complicated legalese, replaced automatically using a spreadsheet of related paragraphs. Data had to be transferred over a secure, encrypted channel (https) with the completed forms accessible through only one secure administrator account to protect the privacy of debtors. With a conveniently-timed lull in funding for my day job, I began developing the back end system and overseeing the technical architecture, working with Tran, Herrine, and our front end developer and designer Zach Greene.

    We released the prototype to the public on March 25 after four weeks of research, design, and development. Within a week, the Debt Collective received over 300 applications (over 2000 to date). Herrine printed out hundreds of applications by hand and delivered them to the Department of Education with representatives from the Corinthian strikers. (When we asked the Department if we could send claims by email, they said no, they would have to be printed and submitted on paper.) Although the Debt Collective continued to submit applications on the behalf of debtors over the next few weeks, the Department of Education remained silent. We wondered if they were overwhelmed by the volume of forms.

    THE RESPONSE

    Finally, after two weeks, the Department of Education announced that they would consider the discharge of some students’ debt. This was a major victory for those affected, but also led to a tremendous revelation about the limits of the Department. They maintain that most debtors must still submit forms individually to prove their injury. A select group of 40,000 Heald students can submit to a “fast track” process, and need only complete an attestation form. But, laughably, the form only works in Adobe Acrobat—not on smartphones or other PDF programs. No wonder only 180 of the 40,000 eligible students have completed the form so far!

    The Department of Education loves certain applications of technology. In April, Secretary Duncan published a piece on Medium.com on the importance of expanding the role of technology in the classroom. And they have an entire Office of Innovation and Improvement that provides grants for education innovation. But when it comes to making conned students aware of their rights to even seek debt discharges, and providing means for them to apply for that discharge, the Department’s technology is essentially nonexistent. If we could fashion a superior solution with a rag-tag, mostly-volunteer crew in two weeks and get the word out to thousands of students, why can’t a government agency with billions in funding do the same?

    Despite the vast amount of money, human resources, and technical knowledge the Department possesses, it still does not have an automated process to discharge the debts of all Corinthians—or any students—at once. The government’s failure to build technology may be one of intentional neglect, to erect barriers to legal processes to which we are entitled. There are resources the Department could use inside and outside of the government, such as 18F and Code for America, to build superior technology that better connect the data warehouses that track past, current, and future students and their family’s finances. But so far this hasn’t happened. Unfortunately, this is not a technical problem but a political problem. The onus of bad debt is placed onto the individuals who took the debt, not on the corporations that profit. And right now the Department’s technological priorities reflect that attitude.

    We’ve proved that something as simple as a PDF generator and mobile-first web front end can radically affect the landscape of education policy, but there’s still a lot of work left to do. We plan on extending the current application to work for all student debtors from multiple colleges, not just the Corinthian chain.

    As a Bay Area “techie,” I’ve heard more times than I can count that we are somehow “changing the world”—and usually I find it offensive. The tech community is rich with stories of startup-driven “disruption” that upends the status quo in a particular sector, without attention immediate needs within the political-economic climate. The fetishization of “disruption that changes the world” overlooks relatively simple efforts, aggrandizing those that affect more “fundamental” functions of the economy or the technology that runs it. But as government technology waxes and wanes, startups fail, and bubbles pop, we must dare to ask—what if the best things we can do in civic tech aren’t the most complex, cutting-edge, or “innovative” technological feats, but rather ones that are attuned to real needs on the ground and made in dialogue with grassroots communities and activists? Technology alone can’t “change the world,” but when technological is employed strategically by social movements, it can certainly help us do so.

    Karissa McKelvey is a programmer and former academic experienced in building interactive data visualization and collaboration tools.

Categories
Citizen Journalism Social Media

MOVE OVER, MEERKAT. PACK YOUR BAGS, PERISCOPE. RHINOBIRD IS HERE.

MOVE OVER, MEERKAT. PACK YOUR BAGS, PERISCOPE. RHINOBIRD IS HERE.

  • The livestreaming space is starting to feel more than a little crowded, with Meerkat and Periscope battling it out for users and honorifics like “the new killer campaign app,” but that hasn’t stopped a new breed of service called Rhinobird from stepping up and declaring itself a “people-driven TV network.” After launching a beta version just two months ago, Rhinobird.tv is ready for their close-up now. Today they celebrate their Open Beta release by—what else?—livestreaming scenes from the streets of New York City, following several New York City street musicians.

    Felipe Heusser, the CEO of Rhinobird, tells Civicist that the platform has several advantages over their competitors, the most significant being a lag of less than one second. Rhinobird uses WebRTC, an open source project that enables Real-Time Communications (RTC). All a potential user needs to get started broadcasting or viewing is a WebRTC-enabled internet browser.

    “The focus of this is really to open the live TV sector,” Heusser tells Civicist. “To reduce the barrier to producing or distributing TV.”

    The one hiccup, Heusser acknowledges, is having to build an iOS-specific app, which he says is in the works but not yet completed.

    Rhinobird makes it easy to get multiple perspectives on the same event(s) through “channels” created around hashtags. When streaming something tagged #timessquare, other streams with the same tag appear at the bottom of the screen.

    Unlike his competitors, Heusser’s funding comes from the Knight Foundation, not venture capitalists. The project that eventually became Rhinobird.tv won the Knight News Challenge in 2012.

    Heusser was inspired to build the platform in 2011, when student-led protests filled the streets in Santiago, Chile. Although many demonstrations were peaceful, the media covered what violence there was to the exclusion of everything else. To show the world the “real picture,” Heusser attached a camera to helium-filled balloons and sent it flying into the air. The video was livestreamed via Twitcasting and garnered more than 10,000 viewers during the 40-minute feed.

    That spurred him along the path to Rhinobird. When asked about the name, Heusser explains that it refers to the symbiotic relationship between a rhinoceros and the birds that perch on its back, eating ticks. A rhinoceros will defend it’s territory, but with it’s bad eyesight the animal often depends on the bird to sound the alarm. This collaborative behavior is what Heusser wants Rhinobird.tv to be about: peer-to-peer broadcasting that increases the diversity of media and enriches the commons.

    Scenes of summer in the city will be livestreaming starting today on Rhinobird.tv.

Categories
Civic Hacking Civic Tech Democracy

Politics and the Culture of Fear: Is There a Place for Digital Disruption?

Politics and the Culture of Fear: Is There a Place for Digital Disruption?

  • It feels as if we can’t escape the culture of fear and extremism that is pervading politics. Political discourse is more vitriolic than ever after San Bernardino and Paris, and during the months of partisan name-calling and ugly mud-slinging among candidates for the U.S. Presidential Race. And clearly, there are no easy solutions to unraveling this vicious cycle.

    During the Christmas holiday, I had an experience that perfectly illustrated this to me. My family and I were at a friend’s house for a holiday event, and I overheard her guests talking as I walked through the kitchen. I heard, “The more he says, the more I like him.” Then, “He says the things we all think but are afraid to say.” I started to get that sick feeling in the pit of my stomach, hoping they weren’t talking about Donald Trump. Then I heard, “The only problem with building a wall between Mexico and the U.S. is that it will have to be so big that it’s impractical and expensive.” I tried to talk myself off the ledge, saying to myself, “Don’t open your mouth, just keep walking, don’t say anything, it won’t help or change anyone’s mind…..” But then as I was about to turn the corner, safely avoiding a conversation that would surely have turned ugly, I heard, “Of course we should ban Muslims from entering the country. Look what they did in Paris.” So, I turned sharply on my heel and unwisely marched over to the little group sitting around the kitchen table.

    “Excuse me,” I said, “but I couldn’t help but overhear your conversation, and I wish that you would consider the fact that excluding or persecuting people solely on the basis of their religion or ethnicity is how (voice rising) the Holocaust started.” And then, when the response to that grenade lob was dropped jaws and the explanation, “It would only be temporary,” I looked at them incredulously, probably with disgust on my face, and said, “That’s what Hitler said and” just in case they didn’t get it the first time, “that’s how the Holocaust started.” Then I abruptly left, muttering, “This was a mistake, I can’t talk about this…..”

    I found this conversation terrifying—not only because the thought of Trump as Presidentimages is terrifying, nor because I was disappointed in myself because I lost my cool, and created an extreme, unbridgeable divide between our viewpoints by invoking the Holocaust. No, this conversation was most terrifying because these people were not bad people. They were the type of people I appreciate: good, kind, hard-working people who love their kids and their family.

    So where does that leave us?

    I don’t have a solution, and indeed, my own extreme reaction during the kitchen table conversation shows that I lack objectivity and am certainly part of the problem. I do, however, as a scientist believe that we can harness what we know about our minds and brains to neutralize this vicious cycle of social and political extremism. Could digital disruption help move us along a path to such change? There might not be an app for that, but below I list three steps I believe could put us on the road towards digital disruption of the political culture of fear.

    1. Frame political extremism as an emotion regulation problem. Before any digital disruption can happen, we have to make sense of the problem and have a concept of what’s going wrong. We have all had one of those kitchen table conversations I described above. In these conversations, our emotions get the better of us: fear, disgust, anger. This is a problem in how we control our emotions and how our emotions control our thoughts, decisions, and actions, something psychologists call emotion regulation. The problem is that our strong emotions rarely convince our debating partners. Instead, they solidify the views everyone already holds, causing us to cling to them even more strongly and rigidly. Common ground is lost, and the divide between perspectives seems increasingly unbridgeable.

    Imagine how a version of that kitchen table conversation happens on the political world stage, sabotaging attempts at diplomacy and mutual understanding. The result is not just upset and angry people. Now the result is that our emotions directly shape political discourse, legal decisions, and policies that can affect generations to come.

    Thus, a first crucial step towards disruption of the political culture of fear is to frame political discourse in terms of emotion regulation, applying what we know about what goes wrong and how to fix it on the individual and group level.

    2. Use technology to promote empathy. Recent research in political psychology suggests that empathy can help heal rancorous political divides. A recently-published study showed that when political advocates fail to understand the values of those they wish to persuade, this “moral empathy gap” causes their arguments to fail. However, when political arguments are reframed in the moral terms of the other side, they are more effective. For example, when asked about their views on universal healthcare, conservatives who heard “purity arguments” (e.g., sick people are disgusting and therefore we need to reduce sickness) were friendlier towards universal healthcare, compared to when they heard “fairness arguments,” which are more consistent with liberal values.

    If we can use technology to bridge the moral empathy gap, we might be able to reduce political polarization and promote better emotion regulation, more compromise, and deepened understanding. Virtual Reality (VR) might be one such technology. I previously wrote about Chris Milk’s thought-provoking TED talk on VR as the “ultimate empathy machine.” By creating a sense of presence and of real interactions with people and worlds, VR forges empathic bridges leading to greater understanding and compassion. In his work with the UN, Chris Milk uses VR to vividly portray the plight of refugees to politicians and policy makers. How does seeing and experiencing the suffering of 5-year-old children in the refugee camps influence policy making? Almost certainly for the better.

    3. Use technology to calm the fearful brain. As political ideologies become increasingly polarized, neuroscience research suggests that the differences between liberal and conservative viewpoints may extend beyond policy preferences to fundamental differences in the “fearful brain.”

    In a paper I wrote in 2014 with Dave Amodio, a professor at NYU, we found that children of liberal compared to conservative parents showed a stronger “N2” brain response to mildly threatening and conflicting information. A greater N2, derived from EEG, suggests more openness to uncertainty, ambiguity, and threat. A culture of fear, in politics or otherwise, is marked by the opposite of this: inflexibility and discomfort in the face of uncertainty and ambiguity, along with resistance to change. These aspects of fear are part of the foundation upon which intolerance is built.

    What if we could create computerized interventions that promote our ability to cope with uncertainty and change, perhaps by strengthening the N2 response? My research on the stress reduction app Personal Zen, as well as other research, shows that this may be possible. More research is needed, but if science-driven digital mental health continues to evolve, reducing the political culture of fear could soon be in the palm of our hand.

    Tracy Dennis-Tiwary is a professor of psychology and neuroscience and writes about mental health and technology. This article was originally posted on her blog, Psyche’s Circuitry.