Different types of articles were read and compared for their approaches taken to communicate information on technology. The ProPublica article on “Machine Bias” examines the Northpointe classification system. This is an algorithm trained to score defendants on how likely they will be to commit crimes in the future and was adopted heavily by the court system to determine the length of sentencing and if parole was an option. The article exposes that biases found in the algorithms. The audience of this type of article can be vast. Due to the manner it is written, most adults can consume the information, but it is also written to undercover truths in the system and therefore meant to educate and create change in society. There are several pictures and quotes from defendants included in this article and protecting their identity would need to be seriously considered. However, because of the ability to share more information and hear first accounts from the population affected, the story becomes more real and changes the defendants from numbers into real people being affected by the system.   

This is very different than the audience that was intended to consume “Accountability in an Algorithmic Society: Relationality, Responsibility, and Robustness in Machine Learning.” This is a dense piece meant for those who have some prior knowledge in the subject like scholars. The downfall of an article like this is that due to its style in which information is presented it will be difficult to reach a larger audience. However, it provides in depth important information that others could cite in their own work.   

Again, a very different piece of work is seen in the “We are AI” comics. The use of pictures and short snippets of readings to convey messages to readers makes it easy to consume information especially if one is not a subject expert. The use of comparisons of AI with common knowledge and metaphors that many can easily understand or know from experience, like baking, help break down complex topics. I think this could reach young adults like high school age, as well as an older population, like my grandparents. Due to it being short there could be a lack of in depth information. However, considering who the audience is it may not be necessary. Overall, this was my favorite reading and I found it very helpful in my understanding of AI and the pitfalls of it. I thought it was so unique and powerful that I share with my work colleagues.  

Data journalism can be so valuable at aiding the understanding of complex issues. It has the potential to create policy change and hold wrong doers accountable, while using data to back and create credibility. However, data can be used to cause harm if not handled properly. The reading below explore further concepts that should be considered in data collection and usage.  

Becoming Data: Data and Humanity podcast episode dives into the ethical and moral uses of data and how data can be used for good or evil. It uncovers how data collection practices are often not legal. The data collected is then subjected to the collectors own morality and through this, the podcasts exposes that data can be used for harm. They bring a vital perspective of  questioning how can we use data to nurture instead of punish. They raise important aspects to consider for data journalism, where the data is coming from and ultimately when exposed will it do harm to certain groups. 

Alex Howard’s talk on Data Journalism in the Second Machine Age discusses the new technologies that can be applied and through the evolution of technology how data is being integrated instead of people. Similarly to the Becoming Data podcast, he raises valid points about the ethics of using people’s data. Alex Howard uses several examples to highlight that privacy and security of sensitive data must still be protected and cannot be released, similar to how journalist would use an anonymous source to protect their identity. 

Data Set Failures and Intersectional Data by Nikki Stevens discusses intersectionality which is an important analytical framework which can be used in data journalism. Nikki discusses the common eight lifecycle phases of data and where failure has been seen. Intersectional research can aid data journalism by exposing power structures, systemic inequalities and social inequality.  

Data journalism often addresses complex issues and because of this it is important to ensure the data is credible, is fact-checked, and transparent while protecting the identity of those involved. It is  important that data is not being used to continue systemic biases through collection methods. Data can be used for harm, but it can also be used to hold certain groups accountable (ex. governments) or to facilitate public policy, while aiding and elevating marginalized voices.

The article Mapping where the earth will become uninhabitable is a data journalism piece that uses climate projection models to show areas around the globe which will become unlivable and the population which will be affected. The 3D interactive visualization uses different climate change issues (heat, floods, hurricanes, and water scarcity) with the data plotted on a map as colorful hexagons which represent an area of 12,000 square kilometers (the size of NYC). Because it is 3D visualization, the population affected is shown as the height of the hexagon. The purpose of this article is to educate and advocate for urgent action to be taken to mitigate catastrophic damage to these regions and populations.    

I was particularly drawn this article because it is beautifully presented. It catches the reader’s eye. The bright colors of the globe contrasted on the black of space with hexagons protruding at varying heights is very attractive. It reminds me of what I would see at an exhibit at the Natural History Museum. Past the bright colors, it continues to draw the audience in via its scrollytelling format and provides an interactive exploration option for the readers to further engage. Through these methods the audience is hooked and will be more likely to consume the information.   

Data visualizations are important for many reasons. One being they help the audience understand and see information in new ways. I believe people learn in different ways and providing different sources for consuming information is important to reach the public. This piece also includes a raw text link without a visualization if a consumer prefers a traditional article or does not have a web browser available. The article benefits a large audience and a wide range of ages and backgrounds. It presents information in an easily understood manner for those that may not be subject experts and it is written in a style that provides the essential information in small consumable pieces.   

A few valuable factors of data journalism that this article includes are providing transparent data sources, data analysis that uncovers insights of the potential peril of populations, beautiful data visualizations to draw the reader in and audience engagement. But a critique of this article is that it does not take that extra step of and it appears to lack community engagement. Although it is providing consumable data for public awareness, it seems to stop at the point of only providing information without suggestions or resources for solutions. However, I did not investigate if this article was used past general education. Overall, the article was beautiful and insightfully provided information on a complex matter.  

Individuals who act in self-interest, Hardin argued, is what will lead to the decline of the commons (Schlottmann, et al., 213). These individuals make up a group of people called the public who share a common resource or space known as the commons. The state organizes the public through officials with the purpose of protecting the shared interest of the members (Dewey 33). We cannot deny the fact that the state is still made up of individuals, who will be tempted to act for their own gain. For this, the commons will result in tragedy due to individuals acting in self-interest through the disguise of the state. 

The power that individuals have through the state is more dangerous to the commons by instilling their facts as laws or truths for the public. Individuals alter facts for their own interests and advances or through their personal biases (Dewey 7). Data is often determined as the source of truth, but what if that source is not truthful. It has been tested that algorithms have been influenced as a reflection of biases in the data. The bias in policing is skewing the data towards predicting that black defendants will comment a violent offense more often than white (Toomy and Sweeny). We can see that the data can be alter by individuals and in turn changed to facts. If individuals with power can bend the data to conform what fits their needs or beliefs, then these “facts” risk becoming the “truths” for the public. 

It is important to contemplate the purpose of individuals acting in their self-interest. It could perhaps be personal interests and gains, like monetary or status gains. We can see this example through Hardin’s simple example of adding more cattle to the pasture. But it may also be more complex and deeply rooted and therefore, other considerations including historical, sociological, anthropological, psychological, and philosophical contexts must be considered. 

Individuals at the state level will work to enforce their self-interests for multiple reasons including cultural and beliefs. Van Vugt said that humans have a strong sense of social belonging, and the strength of their social identity shows how much they are willing to help their group and when people have a strong tie to their group, they are more concern about their reputation (Schlottmann, et al., 245). Individuals of the state act in their self-interest to uphold their reputation. For example, we can often see politicians pushing agendas that support their groups beliefs. Whether it is right or wrong, perhaps individuals fear ridicule or ostracization from the only community they have known. Individuals come from vastly different cultural and societal belief system. As the management of the commons grows to encompass the world, this only becomes more complex.  

Differing cultural beliefs and personal interests make it challenging to foster successful cooperation when managing the commons. If successful cooperation, is what will help the commons, where does that leave us with different ideas on how to management the commons, let alone different cultural and social foundations. This can make it difficult for two different communities, or countries to come together to determine how to manage data and the future of technology. Furthermore, when communities that at this moment are left out, for example a rural community, or an older population, how do we ensure that their interest, and views are represented and protected for the future? 

And through this, we must bear the question, at what cost do we regulate the digital commons? Will it protect, or will it cause harm as individuals act in self-interest through the state. For example, if OpenAI is regulated like how some countries have chosen to regulate social medias, this can risk that individuals at a state level can determine what is fact for the public to consume. Or it is also possible that managing the commons will protect the data of the public, so organizations are unable to take advantage. The managing of the digital commons seems to be marked by a fine line and has a slippery slope.  

Although the future of the commons remains bleak, that doesn’t t mean we shouldn’t attempt to work towards common goals and rethink the current way of managing the digital commons.  

As globalization accelerates, it becomes harder to regulate the commons in ways that use to work (Schlottmann, et al., 235-238). It is important to evolve with the changing times. What worked in the past of farmers managing land may not work as new technologies come out and times change. We must rethink our historical approaches because the only thing that remains constant is change. We must evolve our practices and what we deem as a solution. The commons are a dynamic space that changes with technology and globalization.  

As technology and globalization bring the world closer together, individuals of the state must work with cooperation within their framework and with other governments. Ostrom states that management of the commons depends on the cooperation of appropriate international institutions and national, regional, and local institutions (Schlottmann, et al., 214). But they must also come from a place of understanding that the public is made up of individuals from differing cultures and beliefs.  

Lastly, an interdisciplinary approach of PIT must build the framework within the state and its agencies to ensure a wholistic approach is deployed for the management of the digital commons. Hardin notes that solutions outside of technical solutions should be considered because technical solutions do not change human values or ideas (Schlottmann, et al., 202). By using an interdisciplinary approach, we can work to minimize the tragedy of the digital commons by understanding historical, psychological, philosophical and socioeconomics context of the public.