This article examines “soft facts” about security issues in the 2016 Brexit referendum campaign. Soft facts arise when information provenance is uncertain, and are forms of malleable and contingent knowledge, such as rumors, conspiracy theories, and propaganda. There is a growing appreciation that digital communications environments are especially conducive to the dissemination of these kinds of information. Informed by empirical data comprising forty‐five thousand nine hundred and fifty‐seven data points collected by monitoring social media before and after the UK Brexit referendum campaign (June 16–October 12, 2016), the analysis examines how and why a series of soft facts concerning Brexit were mobilized. By developing the concept of “digital prophecy,” the article explores how influence is exerted by online prophets who were connecting current events to past grievances, to advance negative predictions about the future. This starts to capture the tradecraft of digital influencing, in ways that move beyond the structural topologies of communication networks. In policy terms, the analysis reminds us of the need to attend not just to how influence is achieved through fake news (e.g., using social media bots to amplify a message), but also why influence is sought in the first place.
{"title":"Prophets and Loss: How “Soft Facts” on Social Media Influenced the Brexit Campaign and Social Reactions to the Murder of Jo Cox MP","authors":"Diyana Dobreva, Daniel Grinnell, M. Innes","doi":"10.1002/POI3.203","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/POI3.203","url":null,"abstract":"This article examines “soft facts” about security issues in the 2016 Brexit referendum campaign. Soft facts arise when information provenance is uncertain, and are forms of malleable and contingent knowledge, such as rumors, conspiracy theories, and propaganda. There is a growing appreciation that digital communications environments are especially conducive to the dissemination of these kinds of information. Informed by empirical data comprising forty‐five thousand nine hundred and fifty‐seven data points collected by monitoring social media before and after the UK Brexit referendum campaign (June 16–October 12, 2016), the analysis examines how and why a series of soft facts concerning Brexit were mobilized. By developing the concept of “digital prophecy,” the article explores how influence is exerted by online prophets who were connecting current events to past grievances, to advance negative predictions about the future. This starts to capture the tradecraft of digital influencing, in ways that move beyond the structural topologies of communication networks. In policy terms, the analysis reminds us of the need to attend not just to how influence is achieved through fake news (e.g., using social media bots to amplify a message), but also why influence is sought in the first place.","PeriodicalId":46894,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Internet","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.9,"publicationDate":"2019-05-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1002/POI3.203","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45964638","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Automated decision making is becoming the norm across large parts of society, which raises interesting liability challenges when human control over technical systems becomes increasingly limited. This article defines "quasi-automation" as inclusion of humans as a basic rubber-stamping mechanism in an otherwise completely automated decision-making system. Three cases of quasi- automation are examined, where human agency in decision making is currently debatable: self- driving cars, border searches based on passenger name records, and content moderation on social media. While there are specific regulatory mechanisms for purely automated decision making, these regulatory mechanisms do not apply if human beings are (rubber-stamping) automated decisions. More broadly, most regulatory mechanisms follow a pattern of binary liability in attempting to regulate human or machine agency, rather than looking to regulate both. This results in regulatory gray areas where the regulatory mechanisms do not apply, harming human rights by preventing meaningful liability for socio-technical decision making. The article concludes by proposing criteria to ensure meaningful agency when humans are included in automated decision-making systems, and relates this to the ongoing debate on enabling human rights in Internet infrastructure.
{"title":"Liable, but Not in Control? Ensuring Meaningful Human Agency in Automated Decision-Making Systems","authors":"B. Wagner","doi":"10.1002/POI3.198","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/POI3.198","url":null,"abstract":"Automated decision making is becoming the norm across large parts of society, which raises \u0000interesting liability challenges when human control over technical systems becomes increasingly \u0000limited. This article defines \"quasi-automation\" as inclusion of humans as a basic rubber-stamping \u0000mechanism in an otherwise completely automated decision-making system. Three cases of quasi- \u0000automation are examined, where human agency in decision making is currently debatable: self- \u0000driving cars, border searches based on passenger name records, and content moderation on social \u0000media. While there are specific regulatory mechanisms for purely automated decision making, these \u0000regulatory mechanisms do not apply if human beings are (rubber-stamping) automated decisions. \u0000More broadly, most regulatory mechanisms follow a pattern of binary liability in attempting to \u0000regulate human or machine agency, rather than looking to regulate both. This results in regulatory \u0000gray areas where the regulatory mechanisms do not apply, harming human rights by preventing \u0000meaningful liability for socio-technical decision making. The article concludes by proposing criteria \u0000to ensure meaningful agency when humans are included in automated decision-making systems, \u0000and relates this to the ongoing debate on enabling human rights in Internet infrastructure.","PeriodicalId":46894,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Internet","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.9,"publicationDate":"2019-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1002/POI3.198","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49484323","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Issue Information","authors":"","doi":"10.1002/poi3.178","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/poi3.178","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":46894,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Internet","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.9,"publicationDate":"2019-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1002/poi3.178","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48820271","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Digital privacy concerns are primarily viewed through the lens of personal data and content. But beneath the layer of content, less visible issues of infrastructure design and administration raise significant privacy concerns. The Internet’s Domain Name System (DNS) is one such terrain. There is already a great deal of attention around how the DNS intersects with freedom of speech, trademark disputes, cybersecurity challenges, and geopolitical power struggles in the aftermath of transitioning the historic U.S. oversight role to the global multistakeholder Internet governance community. However, the privacy implications embedded in the technical architecture of the DNS have received less attention, perhaps because these issues are concealed within complex technical arrangements outside of public view. This article explores privacy issues in the DNS by examining two contemporary, and still unresolved, case studies: the WHOIS system as a de facto Internet identity system revealing website registrants; and privacy in domain name queries, which have historically been unencrypted and therefore reveal personal information about what sites individuals visit. DNS privacy challenges not only demonstrate the important connection between infrastructure and rights, but also exemplify how cross-border, universal technologies come into conflict with the bounded laws of nation states. It is a critical moment of opportunity to examine these cases because their resolution will help determine the future of basic privacy rights online.
{"title":"Privacy by Infrastructure: The Unresolved Case of the Domain Name System","authors":"Samantha Bradshaw, L. DeNardis","doi":"10.1002/POI3.195","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/POI3.195","url":null,"abstract":"Digital privacy concerns are primarily viewed through the lens of personal data and content. But beneath the layer of content, less visible issues of infrastructure design and administration raise significant privacy concerns. The Internet’s Domain Name System (DNS) is one such terrain. There is already a great deal of attention around how the DNS intersects with freedom of speech, trademark disputes, cybersecurity challenges, and geopolitical power struggles in the aftermath of transitioning the historic U.S. oversight role to the global multistakeholder Internet governance community. However, the privacy implications embedded in the technical architecture of the DNS have received less attention, perhaps because these issues are concealed within complex technical arrangements outside of public view. This article explores privacy issues in the DNS by examining two contemporary, and still unresolved, case studies: the WHOIS system as a de facto Internet identity system revealing website registrants; and privacy in domain name queries, which have historically been unencrypted and therefore reveal personal information about what sites individuals visit. DNS privacy challenges not only demonstrate the important connection between infrastructure and rights, but also exemplify how cross-border, universal technologies come into conflict with the bounded laws of nation states. It is a critical moment of opportunity to examine these cases because their resolution will help determine the future of basic privacy rights online.","PeriodicalId":46894,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Internet","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.9,"publicationDate":"2019-01-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1002/POI3.195","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47713176","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The U.K. Parliament introduced an e‐petitions system in 2015 with the aim of significantly enhancing its relationship with the public. We explore whether this aim is being met through the analysis of Twitter data from conversations on e‐petitions debated in parliament. We use natural language processing, machine learning, and social network analysis of Twitter data to explore what it shows about the extent of people's engagement, the contents of Twitter e‐petition conversations, who is taking part, and how they interact. Our findings provide interesting insights into how people perceive the e‐petition procedures in terms of fairness and responsiveness, suggesting that petition parliamentary debates should be more inclusive of the original petitions’ aims. The results also point to homophily tendencies present in the Twitter e‐petition discussions.
{"title":"Do Parliamentary Debates of e-Petitions Enhance Public Engagement With Parliament? An Analysis of Twitter Conversations","authors":"Molly Asher, Cristina Leston-Bandeira, V. Spaiser","doi":"10.1002/POI3.194","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/POI3.194","url":null,"abstract":"The U.K. Parliament introduced an e‐petitions system in 2015 with the aim of significantly enhancing its relationship with the public. We explore whether this aim is being met through the analysis of Twitter data from conversations on e‐petitions debated in parliament. We use natural language processing, machine learning, and social network analysis of Twitter data to explore what it shows about the extent of people's engagement, the contents of Twitter e‐petition conversations, who is taking part, and how they interact. Our findings provide interesting insights into how people perceive the e‐petition procedures in terms of fairness and responsiveness, suggesting that petition parliamentary debates should be more inclusive of the original petitions’ aims. The results also point to homophily tendencies present in the Twitter e‐petition discussions.","PeriodicalId":46894,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Internet","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.9,"publicationDate":"2019-01-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1002/POI3.194","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48412068","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Context Matters! Looking Beyond Platform Structure to Understand Citizen Deliberation on Brazil's\u0000 Portal e‐Democracia","authors":"Isabele Mitozo, Francisco Paulo Jamil Marques","doi":"10.1002/POI3.196","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/POI3.196","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":46894,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Internet","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.9,"publicationDate":"2019-01-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1002/POI3.196","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41354014","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Public Values in the Age of Big Data: A Public Information Perspective","authors":"Alex Ingrams","doi":"10.1002/POI3.193","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/POI3.193","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":46894,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Internet","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.9,"publicationDate":"2018-12-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1002/POI3.193","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45184486","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Issue Information","authors":"","doi":"10.1002/poi3.164","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/poi3.164","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":46894,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Internet","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.9,"publicationDate":"2018-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1002/poi3.164","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45666026","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Toward Area-Smart Data Science: Critical Questions for Working With Big Data From China","authors":"D. Stockmann","doi":"10.1002/POI3.192","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/POI3.192","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":46894,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Internet","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.9,"publicationDate":"2018-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1002/POI3.192","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47229282","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Chinese Social Media and Big Data: Big Data, Big Brother, Big Profit?","authors":"Min Jiang, King-wa Fu","doi":"10.1002/POI3.187","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/POI3.187","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":46894,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Internet","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.9,"publicationDate":"2018-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1002/POI3.187","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45859130","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：