Tag: digital culture
The following essay was written as part of my Master’s degree at King’s College, London.
30 January 2013 Danish Minister for Economic and Interior Affairs, Margrethe Vestager introduced a bill permitting electronic elections in Denmark (Vestager, 2013a). The bill was rejected by parliament 13 March, to much surprise for the government (Kildebogaard, 2013a) (Bredsdorff, 2013), some prominent politicians, even mocking both IT experts and opposition using the hashtag #jordenerflad (the earth is flat), calling them technophobes, who live in the future.
What I found striking following the debate and reading the hearing statements was how technology was the main focus, government arguing how technology would help people with disabilities, while opponents mainly focused on, the lack of, IT security and stability.
The debate on who might risk being or feeling excluded by electronic elections and how this might effect democracy, was limited, nearly absent.
In this essay I will discuss the bill, hearing statements and the public debate (1) prior to the vote in relation to theories of digital exclusion and inclusion. I will use these theories to detect strength and weaknesses in the debate, discussing whether the bill should have been passed or was rightfully defeated.
As there is limited research on digital inclusion and exclusion in Danish conditions, I have chosen to use British and Dutch studies, though the results might differ if the same studies where done in Denmark. Especially because elections changes from country to country, depending on culture, electoral systems etc. (Vestager, 2013b, p.32). Keeping this in mind, I will discuss the bill on the theory that the main features would be the same under Danish circumstances.
What the bill encompasses
Following a short summary of the bill bringing out the main points relevant for this essay. The bill (Vestager, 2013a) would introduce digital voting machines (touch screens or the like), replacing pen and paper in the polling booth; voters would still have to show up physically to cast their vote. In an introduction period (not further defined), a receipt would be printed, accompanying the digital vote, making sure voters would be able to double check their ballot papers and in case of suspicion of fraud or errors in the system, these printed ballot could be counted. The bill accentuates an aim to maintain the same level of anonymity in the voting process, as known from analogue procedures, and security as a main focus in an upcoming bidding round, when searching for the right suppliers of the digital voting system. The bill does not supply information of expected expenses and only vaguely describes the need for further education for election officials. Both the bill and the introduction of the bill by the minister underlines how electronic voting will help voters with physical disabilities to vote independently (no further details of how many voters this will affect), as well as minimisation of invalid ballots (0,32% in the general election in 2011 (Vestager, 2013b, p.8)).
The bill would allow voting machines in general-, municipal-, regional- and European Parliament elections, making it an option from the municipal election in November 2013, but optional for the time being (not further defined).
Digital inclusion and exclusion
In the following I will discuss whether the bill, hearing statements and debate sufficiently covered potential exclusion of certain social groups in society and the potential risks this might constitute for the democratic system.
Examining the list of organizations and authorities the ministry called on for hearing statements (Vestager, 2013b) or who, by themselves, chose to submit statements, I find it worth noticing, how the majority represents technological expert knowledge, some represent the elderly, some knowledge of legislation and some physical disabled. Only two organizations, to some degree, represent people with different ethnic origin than Danish: The Danish Institute for Human rights and The Council for Ethnic Minorities (who did not submit a statement). None of the organizations called on mainly represents unemployed, low educated, receivers of social security etc.
According to Van Dijk and Hacker (Van Dijk and Hacker, 2000, p.1) public policy is often pre-occupied with material access, which is reflected in both hearing statements and the composition of the organizations and authorities mentioned above. The same tendency has been noticeable in the surrounding debate mainly concerning security, fraud, cracking and how this might lead to lack of trust in the democratic system (Bredsdorff, 2013) (Vestager, 2013b) (Kildebogaard, 2013b) (Kjærulff, 2013). Considering the scope of this essay I will not go into further detail with the concerns of security and privacy, barely point out that this has been the main discussion.
What is important in relation to this essay is, how a main focus on the technological aspects of the challenges concerning digital development in society risk leading to biased conclusions, according to Van Dijk and Hacker, as barriers causing digital exclusion are diverse and complicated (Van Dijk and Hacker, 2000, p.2).
To help nuancing the discussion of digital divides Van Dijk and Hacker have defined four barriers worth considering, when discussing inequality in relation to use of digital technology (Van Dijk and Hacker, 2000, p.1):
- Lack of experience, causing psychological/mental barriers.
- Lack of material access.
- Skills access.
- Lack of usage opportunities.
As the material is provided in the poling booth, the main focus must be, whether voters are used to using digital technology in their everyday life, having experience, material access, skills and usage opportunities, as voters unaccustomed to technology might avoid participating in the elections. The four barriers are often “(…) neglected or viewed as a temporary phenomenon only touching old people, some categories of housewives, illiterates, and unemployed. The problem of inadequate digital skills is reduced to the skills of operation, managing hardware and software” (Van Dijk and Hacker, 2000, p.2). This seems to be reflected in the hearing statements, as the elderly is represented, but other (digitally) vulnerable social groups lack representation and the bill only scanty meets this as an economic concern by stating: “minor readjustment charges concerning voters, who is not accustomed to IT” (Vestager, 2013a, p.13).
The lack of discussion concerning the mental barriers could indicate a general misunderstanding raised by Van Dijk and Hacker (Van Dijk and Hacker, 2000, p.10) that digital exclusion will disappear the more we as a society get used to using computer, internet and other digital appliances. Where as research shows the gap between experienced users and inexperienced users follows an s curve and stays the same, causing a risk of inexperienced user always feeling left behind maintaining the mental barrier, though they gain experience, and those having a technological advantage will not lean back and stop learning, where as the knowledge and “lack of comfort” gap remains (Norris, 2001, p.31) (Helsper, 2013, p.8) (Van Dijk and Hacker, 2000, p.16). Though some voters with high education and material wealth might have chosen not to use technology, the important group in relation to this essay is those lacking knowledge because of low education, unemployment or because they are socially marginalization in society (Helsper, 2013, p.17) as they would be the once affected by the four barriers as mentioned in the above.
As the bill aims to secure high voter turnouts in the future, underlining how this is important in the democratic system, it does not mention the importance of voter turnouts being equally distributed among electorates, though democracy will lack legitimacy, if certain groups in society abstain from voting (Elklit et al., 2004, p.74).
Who are the voters?
The intention of the bill was to introduce electronic voting at the municipal elections in November 2013. Research shows that the Danish municipal elections usually have a 70 percent turnout (Elklit et al., 2004, p.75), where as voters who are unmarried, on social security or incapacity benefits and living in disadvantaged neighbourhoods have a turnout below 30 percent in the capitol, Copenhagen (Elklit et al., 2004, p.76). Data also shows how ethnic minorities are more likely to vote the more integrated they are in the Danish society, with the result, that less integrated social groups lack representation in the democracy (Elklit et al., 2004, p.76).
Looking at the bill, hearing statements and the debate no one plead their cause, recognising the possible under-representation – neither those in favour of the bill nor those opposed to it.
As there is a convergence between those lacking digital experience and those not voting in the municipal elections, it might influence the elections leading people of limited means etc. less representation in the democracy, causing it to a lack legitimacy.
Contradicting the public nature of elections
Ellen Helsper argues the importance of keeping in mind “(How) Can we prevent the replication of existing patterns of social exclusion in the use of digital media?” (Helsper, 2013, p.3) As discussed in the above electronic voting might magnify the patterns of exclusion, though there are advantages for psychically disabled, according to both bill and interest groups (Vestager, 2013b, p.6) (Vestager, 2013a, p.6), there is a lack of facts showing how many might benefit, and no debate at all on who might be excluded, by alienating them either in the polling booth or reinforcing the barriers causing socially excluded groups not to show up at all.
The digital technologies suggested in the bill might seem like a minor change to the voting procedure, as it is aims to maintain well-known procedures only replacing pen and paper with touchscreens or the like. Nevertheless the minister introducing the bill, Margrethe Vestager, added in an interview, that a consequence of electronic voting would be limiting election officials, in the long run, emphasising it as a small sacrifice for the advantages (Lange, 2013), the statement confirming concerns from the opposition (Kjærulff, 2013).
Though it is difficult to compare elections across borders, as mentioned in the introduction, similar changes to voting procedures have cost, substantial protest in other countries, e.g. Ireland, The Netherlands and Germany. In 2009 the German protests led to a court ruling in the Federal Constitutional Court prohibiting the use of voting machines arguing “that the use of the electronic machines contradicts the public nature of elections” (European Digital Rights, 2009), causing voting procedures to return to pen and paper, despite voting machines being in use for 10 years without evidence of errors or fraud. In both Ireland and Germany the main arguments have been, procedures seeming opaque, drawing the conclusion, if there was the least risk of alienating marginalized social groups in the democratic system or causing mistrust in the democratic process, it would not be worth the potential advantages (Vestager, 2013b) (Federal Constitutional Court of Germany, 2009).
Electronic elections in the future
Margrethe Vestager, the minister responsible for the bill, predicts there will be experiments with electronic voting machines in near future, despite the vote down (Kildebogaard, 2013c).
In these trails, it will be important to research, not only usability easing physically use of the machines, but also if the digital changes risk turning voters into non-voters, and whether this will affect the democratic composition of the turnout in general. The non-existing debate concerning this area, seem to indicate a lack of knowledge and facts. As described the debate has been pre-occupied with technology, neglecting the possible alienation and lack of transparency causing Germany and Ireland to return to pen and paper.
As described in the introduction, the changes in voting procedures, according to the bill, would have been relatively small, one of the main features being a printed receipt, making recounting votes possible, and thereby supporting a notion of transparency. But still, when prominent politicians, e.g. Minister for research, innovation and higher education, Morten Østergaard, taunts the opposition calling them technophobes (Østergaard, 2013), and Trine Bramsen, IT spokes person for the social democrats argues, that Denmark need voting machines, because “we are a digital nation” (Kjærulff, 2013), combined with the bill and the hearing statements, it seems to indicate a lopsided discussion preoccupied with technological progress, neglecting those risking digital exclusion.
Bredsdorff, M. (2013) Leder: Tåbeligt at overhøre it-specialisternes advarsler mod elektroniske valg [online]. Available from: http://ing.dk/artikel/leder-taabeligt-overhoere-it-specialisternes-advarsler-mod-elektroniske-valg-157106 (Accessed 10 April 2013).
Van Dijk, J. & Hacker, K. (2000) ‘The digital divide as a complex and dynamic phenomenon‘, in 1 June 2000 Paper presented at the 50th Annual Conference of the International Communication Association, Acapulco, 1-5 June 2000.
Elklit, J. et al. (2004) Hvem stemmer – og hvem stemmer ikke? (who is voting – and who isn’t?). Aarhus University Press. [online]. Available from: http://www.unipress.dk/media/2909707/87-7934-843-2_hvem_stemmer.pdf.
European Digital Rights (2009) No E-Voting In Germany. 11 March. [online]. Available from: http://www.edri.org/edri-gram/number7.5/no-evoting-germany (Accessed 11 April 2013).
Federal Constitutional Court of Germany (2009) Use of voting computers in 2005 Bundestag election unconstitutional – press release. [online]. Available from: http://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/pressemitteilungen/bvg09-019en.html (Accessed 9 April 2013). [online].
Helsper, E. (2013) Digital Inclusion and Exclusion, presentation at King’s College 18 March 2013.
Kildebogaard, J. (2013a) Analyse: Hvad kan vi lære af e-valgsdebatten? [online]. Available from: http://www.version2.dk/artikel/analyse-hvad-kan-vi-laere-af-e-valgsdebatten-51285 (Accessed 8 April 2013).
Kildebogaard, J. (2013b) Danmarks førende e-valgsforsker: Forkast lovforslag om e-valg (Denmarks leading elections reserach scientist: reject the e-election bill) [online]. Available from: http://www.version2.dk/artikel/danmarks-foerende-e-valgsforsker-forkast-lovforslag-om-e-valg-50245 (Accessed 8 April 2013).
Kildebogaard, J. (2013c) Vestager efter e-valgs-nederlag: ’Jeg er dybt forundret’ [online]. Available from: http://www.version2.dk/artikel/vestager-efter-e-valgs-nederlag-jeg-er-dybt-forundret-51217 (Accessed 11 April 2013).
Kjærulff, A. (2013) Aflyttet (eng.: Tapped). 6 February. [online]. Available from: http://arkiv.radio24syv.dk/video/7733217/aflyttet-uge-6-2013.
Lange, L. (2013) Elektroniske valg kommer trods kritik (E-elections will come despite criticism). 13 February. [online]. Available from: http://www.altinget.dk/artikel/elektroniske-valg-kommer-trods-kritik (Accessed 13 April 2013).
Norris, P. (2001) Digital Divide: Civic Engagement, Information Poverty, and the Internet Worldwide. Cambridge University Press.
Vestager, M. (2013a) Forslag til lov om ændring af lov om valg til Folketinget, lov om valg af danske medlemmer til Europa-Parlamentet og lov om kommunale og regionale valg (Bill altering the former bill of elections (parliament, municipal, regional and European Parliament elections introducing digital voting and counting of votes). [online]. Available from: http://www.ft.dk/samling/20121/lovforslag/L132/som_fremsat.htm#dok (Accessed 9 April 2013). p.34. [online].
Vestager, M. (2013b) Hearing statements including repliesDanish Minister for Economic and Interior Affairs, Margrethe Vestager (final) Høringsnotat – 240113 – endelig [DOK51072]. [online]. Available from: http://www.ft.dk/samling/20121/lovforslag/l132/bilag/1/1209860.pdf [online].
Østergaard, M. (2013) Tweet from Minister for Research, Innovation and Higher Education in Denmark mocking the oppostition using the hashtag #jordenerflad (the earth is flat). [online]. Available from: https://twitter.com/oestergaard/statuses/314746267009949697. [online].
(1) I have read through all online articles on the subject from the Danish newspaper with the largest circulation www.politiken.dk, www.version2.dk a dominant news site for it professionals and engineers and relevant radio programmes from Radio 24syv, one of two public service media stations in Denmark.
As part of my master’s degree in Digital Culture and Society I wrote an essay in January about “how the use of media technologies can help strengthen the feeling of community of the Icelandic People in the process of crowdsourcing their constitution”.
Though I don’t believe the (flawless) solution to modern democratic governing is involving the public in every process, in my opinion the risk of peer pressure is overwhelming, I do admire how well thought through and thorough the Icelandic crowdsourcing project was.
Therefor I was sad to read how the Icelandic government this week overturned the publics desire for change and thereby risk to damage the public believe in democracy for many decades to come.
If you want to read more, you can find my essay here: Crowdsourcing the constitution to unify Iceland
A bit of background
Post the financial collapse in 2008 the Icelandic people went to the streets banging on pots and pans demanding government to step down and a new constitution to be written, securing transparency in both government and the financial system, declaring non-privately owned national resources as national property as well as modernising the voting system.
As a result the government willingly stepped down and subsequently, to re-establish trust in the democratic system post the collapse, they chose to crowdsource the new constitution.
Much have been written about the process, most significantly the reports written by Professor of Economics Thorvaldur Gylfason available here:
Following the Icelandic people backed the proposal (66% voted for the new constitution, turnout was 49% of Iceland’s 235,000 eligible voters). But apparently this didn’t proof anything for parliament, as they this Wednesday decided to postpone the decision of a new constitution and complicate the process of the decision further by raising the number of votes needed to confirm it by referendum.
De seneste dage, er jeg faldet over tre forskellige indlæg om had på internettet, primært rettet mod kvinder. Dette svenske initiativ er et af de stærkeste, jeg er stødt på, det viser kvinder, der læser kommentarer, de har modtaget højt (via @thornkvist )
Et andet vigtigt indlæg i debatten kommer fra Sarah Parmenter, der beskriver, hvorfor hun og andre kvinder risikerer at blive skræmt væk fra at tale på teknologi-konferencer – men der kan sagtens drages paralleller til andre fag:
Ligeledes er det værd at læse dette interview med Mary Beard, professor i klassisk filologi:
Det er trist, at nogen vil synke så dybt, at kritik retter sig mod udseende, seksualitet, at diskussion bliver til trolling, til hate speech eller (trusler) om overgreb. Der er ingen let løsning,men det er vigtigt at sprede budskabet, det her er ikke en gang tilnærmelsesvis okay. Som en bekendt så fint formulerede det: Fy fan!
Beth Noveck former deputy chief technology officer for US open government and author of the book Wiki Government, teaches a course at NYCWagner in Open Government. They’ve just posted the syllabus, and there’s lots of great inspiration, for those of us who can’t be in NYC this term: Government 3.0: Rethinking Governance and Re-imagining Democracy for the 21st Century
As part of my MA studies I’ve been
forced encouraged to read a lot about/of McLuhan and technological determinism. Some of it good, some great, some “in the future you should cut down on the LSD”. I’d never really had a reason to study his writings and to spare others from reading the real sh**e once I’ve collected some of the videos and writings I found most interesting:
Easy to read Playboy interview with McLuhan from 1969
“Marshall McLuhan the man and his message” – one hour documentary, introduced by Tom Wolfe from 1984:
Marshall McLuhan – the global village – a short introduction – quite impressive for someone who didn’t live to see the internet take off and worth watching if you’re interested in Yochai Benkler and his theory of Social Production.
Also worth reading/watching is Tom Pettitt explaining the Gutenberg theory – a theory which states that digitalization is causing a return to the oral era – or the culture of the oral era – which makes the printing press and Gutenberg a mere parenthetical sentence (this was food for thought for me!)
Tom Wolfe’s article about McLuhan “suppose he is what he sounds like, the most important thinker since Newton, Darwin, Freud, Einstein and Pavlov, what if he is right?”
Jeg sad i går i en interessant diskussion med en flok begavede unge journalister om transparens og kildebrug, en diskussion, der blandt andet tog udgangspunkt i David Weinbergers tekst Transparency is the new objectivity. Weinburger er, som altid, temmelig radikal, men jeg gik derfra med en dårlig smag i munden, for endnu en gang oplevede jeg journalister, der talte imod transparens i journalistikken og for (efter min mening hovedløs) kildebeskyttelse, hvilket i sidste ende kan gøre journalistikken utroværdig, fordi vi af og til er for hurtige på tasterne i behovet for og håbet om et scoop.
Men tilbage til den dårlige smag, da jeg kom hjem, slog det mig, at det jeg reagerede på i diskussionen var skepsis. Jeg oplever alt for ofte skeptiske journalister, der – uden tvivl – opfatter dem selv som kritisk, men som, særligt når det kommer til medie- og teknologisk udvikling er sure for en sikkerhedsskyld. I den bedste af alle verdener er journalisten drevet af nysgerrighed og kritisk sans, men alt for ofte ryger nysgerrigheden på bekostning af skeptisk sans. I stedet for de muligheder, der er i at arbejde med transparens (i metode, kildebrug og proces), der forhåbentlig kan være med til at understøtte journalistikkens troværdighed, så holder vi fast i de metoder, der virkede på print. Udfordringen er, at brugernes tro på medierne er dalende, og vi er nødt til at forandre den måde, vi arbejder på – eller rettere sagt – gøre det tydeligt, at vi har en troværdig proces. Jeg er fuldstændig med på, at der er udfordringer, når det kommer til kildebeskyttelse, men det bør ikke sætte en stopper for journalistikkens nødvendige udvikling.
Definitionen på kritisk er iøvrigt ifølge ordbogen.com, at være: bedømmende, undersøgende, vurderende, hvorimod hvis man er skeptisk, så er man: forbeholden, kritisk, mistroisk, mistænksom og tvivlende.
Skepsissen bliver især tydelig, når det kommer til det, vi, af en eller anden grund, bliver ved med at kalde nye medier – “det tager tid”, “det fjerner fokus”, “det stjæler vores marked”, “det ødelægger verden af i går” – argumenter, som langt hen ad vejen kan være rigtige, men som ofte er mere skeptiske end kritiske – og derfor ukonstruktive.
Det samme sker, når det kommer til crowdsourcing og i det hele taget brugerinvolvering, der desværre stadig ofte i Danmark værfes af med argumenter i genren “brugerne er dumme” eller fra journalisternes side “cheferne vil have brugerne til at skrive, det vi skal tjene penge på – gratis”. Heldigvis er der medier – fx. Information, der udfordrer rammerne og laver fremragende projekter som fx. dette om Overvågning i Danmark
Der findes masser af ukritisk metajournalistik* om technologi i de traditionelle medier, det er selvfølgelig ikke den, jeg efterspørger – jf. fx de mange artikler om Apple-produkter og tonsvis af artikler med rubrikker a la “Facebook er pissefarligt og stjæler alt, hvad du ejer”, der alt for ofte er mere skeptiske end kritiske.
Så, kære kollega, næste gang, du finder nej-hatten frem, vil du så ikke, for branchens overlevelses skyld, tøve et sekund og spørge dig selv “er jeg skeptisk eller er jeg kritisk?” – for i det øjeblik skepsissen bliver en rygmarvsreaktion, så laver vi dårlig journalistik og sætter udviklingen i stå.
Hvis du vil læse mere om kilderbrug og kildebeskyttelse – og troværdighed i journalistik, så vil jeg endnu engang anbefale Felix Salmons klumme Why Journalists Need to Link, den stiller nogle rigtige spørgsmål, som en hver journalist burde kunne besvare.
*med metajournalistik mener jeg proces-orienteret journalistik a la Politiken artiklen Nu begynder iPhone 5-hypen – igen hvem er det lige, der starter/føjer til hypen, kære Politiken?
Robert Krulwich, den ene af værterne på programmet Radiolab er en af de bedste fortællere, jeg kender. I 2011 blev han inviteret til at holde dimissionstalen på UC Berkeley for de nyuddannede journalister. Talen burde vises til en hver ung journalist, der ønsker sig en karriere i mediebranchen – og hvis det ikke var blasfemi overfor en velskrevet og begavet opsang, så ville den kunne opsummeres i Nike-sloganet “just do it”.
Krulwich pointerer, at unge bør være loyale horisontalt – mod deres generation, mod deres tid, mod deres venner – drop den vertikale loyalitet, hvor fokus ligger på at stige i graderne ved at efterligne ældre generationer og virksomheders måder at agere på. Virksomhederne vil alligevel ikke være loyale mod de unge. Gør det, du brænder for, så skal du nok nå langt.
Det kan lyde som romantik, men jeg tror at Krulwich rammer hovedet på sømmet.
Udskrift af talen kan læses her
Det hele startede for seks dage siden. 8. marts kl. 8.22, hvor forfatteren Linda Grant skrev et uskyldigt feministisk tweet for at fejre Kvindernes Internationale Kampdag:
Linda Grant havde længe været frustreret over, at unge er historieløse, når det kommer til feministernes betydning for samfundet. Men i løbet af dagen fik hun tusinder af svar – hun retweetede en del af de svar, hun fik – og projektet eskalerede og endte på den måde som et crowdsourcing-projekt om feminisme og sexisme. For et par dage siden tilbød en bruger at samle tweetsene som dokumentation for eftertiden på sitet A Thousand Reasons (why feminism is still relevant and nescessary).
Man kan mene om emnet, hvad man vil, men dette er et af de mest interessante og vidtrækkende crowdsourcing-projekter, jeg er faldet over, hvor almindelige brugere (ikke nørder med stor erfaring i data-behandling) har brændt nok for et emne til at byde ind og skabe en dokumentation ingen journalist havde formået at samle, om han eller hun så havde brugt uger på det.
Læs Linda Grants historie om tweetet og sitet her: Twitter’s tales of sexism