Echo Chambers and ‘Post-fact’ Politics – developing ideas

Half day workshop to build tools for a ‘post-fact’ world

Apparently we’ve ‘had enough of experts’. Increasingly online platforms quietly tailor what we encounter to fit our existing views- creating echo chambers out of our prejudices. We are worried that the role of evidence in politics is slipping- and we want to do something about it.

A preliminary workshop was held in November attracting a broad range of people from far and wide. Together a list of initiatives was created responding to these challenges. Click this link to read the list of initiatives and add your own thoughts.

Now we are running a follow-on event to allow people to develop these ideas. If you’re an activist, policy wonk, artist, or simply someone interested in this topic we’d love for you to join us. It doesn’t matter if you didn’t make the first event as we will get you up to speed with a chance to add new ideas on the day.

For more information regarding the Echo Chambers and ‘Post-fact’ Politics workshops go to www.postfactpolitics.com

Provisional programme for 2017

IMG_0066From last night’s planning meeting we now have a provisional programme for 2017 and it is quite an ambitious one. What is great from our perspective is that there is a continuation of a number of themes that we have been looking at over the last year and a resurfacing of perennial ones. Highlights include the ‘making and doing’ workshops that have been developed as part of the Echo Chambers and ‘Post-Fact’ Politics programme and the Visualising Data workshops. There are a number of sector and technically specific events but one to watch out for is alternative ways of looking at the world which will be a day of walks, talks and explorations. As always there is a large dose of how data and technology impact on society and much more.

This is a provisional programme and we are looking for as much input as possible (Dates and sessions are subject to change). Please click on the Google Doc and add comments. We are looking for people who can contribute, sponsors, venues and partners.

Link to Google Doc

Screen Shot 2016-11-30 at 10.37.12

Screen Shot 2016-11-30 at 10.37.27

Echo5

A one-day workshop to develop new ways of tackling a ‘post-fact’ world

12th November 2016, 10.00 – 16.00. The Shed, Chester Street, Manchester
The event is free, register here

We live in interesting times. Trust in, and respect for experts seems to be declining-  Michael Gove recently said that we’ve ‘had enough of experts’. Increasingly online platforms quietly tailor what we encounter to fit our existing views- creating echo chambers out of our prejudices. At the same time political issues are becoming more and more complex as science and technology advances and society becomes more complicated.

These and other changes seem like a perfect storm for breeding a dystopian world in which the importance of evidence slowly slips out of view. But at the same time technology also offers hope for more enlightened debate- with the internet creating many new opportunities to engage, learn, and create. So we want to do something about these issues.

We want to draw together people with a wide range of experience and interest to try and unpick these issues and think what we can start developing ways of tackling these. Whether you’re an artist, an activist, a policy wonk, or simply someone interested in this area we want to hear your ideas.

We will be using an ‘unconference’ style, which means that people who come to the event will shape what we talk about. The aim will be to identify where the challenges lie and think of potential solutions, leading to a future event where we will develop these ideas further and- hopefully- start to get them built.

To start the discussion we will be creating a website and encourage people to submit short blogs related to the theme.

Register here

This event is organised by Open Data Manchester and The Democratic Society with the kind support of Manchester Metropolitan University and Digital Innovation at MMU

Logos

What happened? Looking at the data behind the referendum

Tuesday 26th July, 18.30 – 20.30
CoopHQ, 1 Angel Meadows, Manchester M60 0AG

Partial truths, distorted facts and outright lies have helped create the febrile climate that exists post Brexit. The information war that took place prior to the referendum created an atmosphere in which rational judgements were hard to make and gut instinct rose to the fore. Within this context, advocates of Vote Leave rubbished experts and mishandled facts with glee. Anyone contesting these claims were branded as promoters of Project Fear and part of the expert-led conspiracy that sought to undermine the public’s right to self-determination.

Post referendum and the dust hasn’t yet settled. We are starting to see lots of data giving us insight into what happened – from polls to voting patterns, from demographics to economic forecasts. This is an opportunity to analyse and share thoughts on a most extraordinary event.

We are an open forum and anyone who has insight and analysis to share are encouraged to participate.

Tickets are free and available here

Democracy Projects – Open Election Special

It was appropriate that March’s Open Data Manchester meeting should focus on projects related to the forthcoming elections. Not only because the country goes to the polls next month but also that election data was the first area of interest when Open Data Manchester started five years ago. The release of election data by Trafford Council in 2010 started them off on their journey to become open data champions, and it is through forums such as Open Data Manchester and Social Media Cafe Manchester people became connected.

Election Station

In 2015 there are a number of fantastic initiatives that try and unpick the proposed policies of the political parties, and filter through the fluff and bluster of our incumbent and prospective parliamentary candidates.

Digital and networked technology as well as access to data that is either open, scraped, scanned, manually transcribed or crawled, creates the opportunity to understand and analyse what is proposed and how parliamentarians have delivered on the promises of the past. Not only do these technologies allow us to be more informed but might also offer a way of building the policies of the future through novel forms of engagement and participation. Advocates for direct democracy see that creating opportunities for people to have a say in policy decisions makes for a more engaged society. Estonia’s Charter 12 and Iceland’s Crowd Sourced Constitution Bill are examples of these approaches in action. Both coming directly out of crises, where faith had been lost in the democratic process.

The need to re-enfranchise people into democratic participation is critical. In Manchester Central constituency where Labour candidate Lucy Powell was elected in a 2012 by-election, there was an 18% voter turnout. Without democratic mandate the legitimacy of government is vastly reduced. Which in turn has impact on the way the country is run and how people engage and align with the decisions of government.

There are many examples of projects in the UK that are seeking to make the sometimes arcane processes of government and its representatives more understandable. Notable in this space are the many projects that have been supported and developed by mySociety, with the stated aim of inventing and popularising digital tools that enable citizens to exert power over institutions and decision makers. Democracy Club, Full Fact and Unlocking Democracy are active in this space, as well as a raft of people who volunteer their time and see the importance of making the election process more open.

  • YourNextMP – Built by Democracy Club is an open database and API of candidate data
  • Meet Your Next MP – Created by JMB Technology lists independent events and hustings in your constituency
  • The Big Monitoring Project – Being developed by Full Fact seeks to record what politicians and the media says and hold them to account.
  • ElectionLeaflets.org – By Election Leaflets, Unlocking Democracy and Democracy Club. Crowdsourcing a database of the leaflets that candidates shove through your door and what they say.

Many of these initiatives are looking for people to volunteer their time and expertise.

The subsequent discussions focussed on why people don’t engage and possible ways that technology can help. Many of the group had direct experience of trying to get social housing tenants to vote on matters that affected their tenancy due to a large housing stock transfer. Although the subject affects tenants in an immediate and tangible way there was difficulty engaging people who were not otherwise engaged. In the end staff from the housing association had to knock on doors and explain to people what they were voting for in order to get people to vote. This highlights the difficulty those working on engagement with the democratic process face. Ways of making the process easier were discussed but this led to a deeper exploration as to the nature of engagement. If we make voting easier does it change the nature and relationship between the voter and the subject being voted upon? Perhaps we are trying to look at the symptoms rather than the cause and a democracy based upon weak or passive interaction was not as strong as one where effort was needed to register an opinion. One of the group highlighted the difference between the situation in the UK compared to countries where engaged public discussion where part of life.

Making the democratic process more understandable is vitally important to engagement. Voters need to feel as though they have agency and that their decision has importance. A challenge faced when trying to decide who to vote for is cutting through the rhetoric masking policy. There is also difficulty in creating key comparators and metrics. How do we create an environment where we can compare what one person says over another and how can we understand the impact those position would make to our communities. It was suggested that if we could standardise certain aspects of a manifesto we would be able to compare across positions. This could then be overlaid on to data from local communities that has been modelled in a standardised way allowing direct comparison of potential impact. There are a number of challenges associated with this – such as the candidates local position might differ from that of the party.

There is a wealth of data that evidences the voting behaviour of incumbent MPs which could be used as a metric to judge the attractiveness of a candidate. This data is only available for incumbents and not those in opposition. Party politics can override the voting preferences of individual MPs and politicians often have to make difficult decisions that may be seen as undesirable. If an MP stated a position to which you voted for and then evidences a pattern of voting behaviour in office that doesn’t correlate, that information would be useful in helping you choose who to vote for.

Creating a service where you can map your own preferences with those of candidates and then follow the voting patterns of your parliamentary representative over time was deemed useful – allowing the user to understand the reasons why they voted for that candidate and whether, in light of those historic preferences, the candidate was a good representative.

Creating standardisation so that you can map candidates directly onto locality – assumes that the individual would act independently and not be whipped by the party.

Voting data also enables you to see how rebellious a candidate who doesn’t necessarily tow the party line is. A number of the group suggested that ‘Rebellion Ratings’ could be seen as a good indicator of principled behaviour, over the representatives desire to further their own political career.

Democracy Club is crowdsourcing the CVs of prospective candidates so that people get a better idea of who they are voting for. It was mentioned that this would be interesting to compare with the LinkedIn profiles of candidates. Comparing a professional business facing persona with one that has been created to garner public support.

There are a lot of excellent projects that are trying to make the process of government and the effectiveness of MPs more understandable. It would be interesting to see if some of these could be implemented at a local government election level. If people are more connected to their locality it would make sense to develop projects that help people to engage with local decision making. Perhaps this could be another front to fight disenfranchisement within the democratic process.

 

 

Open Election Special – March 31st

Tuesday 31st March 6.30pm – 8.30pm
Spaceport X
1st Floor
24-26 Lever Street
Manchester
M1 1DZ
More details and directions here

Sign up on Eventbrite here

The country will go to the polls on May the 7th and decide the government that will represent us over the next five years. In many boroughs local elections will also be taking place.

Five years ago Open Data Manchester advocated for making available data relevant to the elections. Chris Taggart who was at the time working on OpenlyLocal came and did a presentation about the Open Election Data initiative and explained why we need to have relevant open data about those that seek to represent us and the election process.

This month’s event looks at what has changed, whether access to these data has improved and what we can do to make the process and choosing of our representatives more understandable.

The event is a precursor to an election data hack event that will be taking place later in April.

More details will be released nearer the date.

As ever Open Data Manchester is a forum for anyone who is interested in open data and we encourage people to come along and share their interests and propose new sessions and events.

For more details contact Julian

Reproducibility in Science and Policy – An Open Data Manchester January Special

6.30pm – 8.30pm, Tuesday 27th January 2015
Greenheys Business Centre
Manchester Science Park
Pencroft Way
Manchester M15 6JJ

Map here

Sign up on Eventbrite here

We kick off a packed 2015 Open Data Manchester calendar with an evening exploring the reasons why we need to have reproducibility when it comes to creating new knowledge. Our two guest speakers, Professor Carole Goble CBE and Ellen Broad will be our guides.

The ability to independently verify the result of scientific research has long been one of the main principles of scientific method. By creating reproducible research – through publishing the methods, code and data along with the scientific paper – others can reproduce the results and create new work from this research. Although this might seem an essential position to take for the creation of better science it is not universally implemented.

Reproducibility in policy is an emerging area. Like science it would seem to be an essential component for making good policy decisions that can then be tried and tested by others. Allowing scrutiny of the methods and underlying data used to make a policy decision has the possibility of creating a more informed electorate and an environment for building on robust evidence based policy decisions.


Biographies

Carole Goble is a Full Professor in the School of Computer Science, at the University of Manchester in the UK. She leads a large team of researchers and developers working in e-Science. She applies technical advances in knowledge technologies, distributed computing, workflows and social computing to solve information management problems for Life Scientists, especially Systems Biology, and other scientific disciplines, including Biodiversity, Chemistry, Health informatics and Astronomy. Her current research interests are in reproducible research, asset curation and preservation, semantic interoperability, knowledge exchange between scientists and new models of scholarly communication. She has been advocating the releasing of research as Research Objects (www.researchobject.org).

In 2008 she was awarded the Microsoft Jim Gray award for outstanding contributions to e-Science and in 2010 was elected a Fellow of the Royal Academy of Engineering. In 2014 she was appointed Commander of the Order of the British Empire by Her Majesty The Queen for her Services to Science.

Ellen joined the ODI in September 2014 as Policy Lead, where her role is to provides advice to government and the private sector on how it can capitalise on open data, and engage on issues affecting access to and re-use of data. 

Ellen’s background is in copyright law and policy, focused on its intersection with and impact on internet services and new technologies. Ellen started in this area as Executive Director of the Australian Digital Alliance (ADA) before moving to a role as Manager of Digital Policy & Projects for the International Federation of Library Associations & Institutions (IFLA) based in The Hague. Ellen will totally nerd out on arcane details of EU and international copyright law if given an opening (so think carefully about looking too interested).

Outside of copyright and data, Ellen plays drums (badly), reads books and longs for Australian sunshine.

Open Data Manchester – November 2014

6.30pm – 8.30pm Wednesday 26th November 2014
Greenheys Business Centre
Manchester Science Park
Pencroft Way
Manchester M15 6JJ

Map here

Sign up on Eventbrite here

There is a more general theme to this month’s Open Data Manchester although a lot to cover.

Open Data Manchster will have been going for 5 years in April and as a voluntary, unincorporated group that doesn’t even have a bank account, it hasn’t done too bad. Does ODM need to become more formalised? How can we become more representative of the membership? And what do we need to do to be relevant for the coming years? Turn up and have a part in the future of ODM

We will be feeding back on the Open Data Cooperation work that we’ve been involved with over the past few months and will be a chance to add your thoughts

Like always it will be a chance to share ideas, discuss projects and find out what’s happening with open data in Manchester and further afield.

Open : Data : Cooperatives – Synopsis

This is a synopsis of the meeting held in Berlin that forms the basis of the upcoming Open : Data : Cooperation event on the 20th October 2014

Open : Data  : Cooperatives.

On the evening of the 16th July 2014 in a small bar of SingerStraße in Berlin a group of Open Knowledge Festival attendees came together for a meeting, to discuss whether cooperatives offered the potential to create formalised structures for the creation and sharing of common data assets, and whether this would enable the creation of value for their stakeholders. This discussion is sets the framework for an event that will take place in Manchester UK on the 20th October 2014

The discussion was initially broken down into seven themes of

  • Models: How do the varied models of cooperative ownership fit to data, and do new forms of cooperative and commons based structure offer potential solutions?
  • Simplicity: Can one model fit all data or do different scenarios need tailored solutions
  • Transparency: How can a cooperative that is steered by its membership along ethical grounds also be considered open?
  • Representation: Do individuals have enough control over their data to enable third party organisations such as a cooperative, to represent their data?
  • Negotiation: How can cooperative members balance control over their data with use by third parties?

  • Governance: Is it possible to create an efficient system of governance that respected the wishes of all members?
  • Mechanisms of transaction: Can a data cooperative exist within a federated cooperative structure and how would it transact and create value.

This is a synopsis of the discussion

Why create a data cooperative?

Our modern, technologised society exists on data. Our everyday interactions leave a trace that is often invisible and unknown to us. The services that we interact with, the daily transactions that we make and the way we negotiate through our everyday generate data, building a picture of who we are and what we do. This data also enables aggregators to predict, personalise and intervene seamlessly and sometimes invisibly. Even for the most technically literate, keeping track of what we do and don’t give away is daunting. There is a need to stem the unbridled exploitation of personal data by both public and private organisations, to empower individuals to have more control over the data they create, and for people to have more of a say in the services that are built upon and informed by this data. Data cooperatives may help rebalance the relationship between those that create data and those that seek to exploit it whilst also creating the environment for fair and consensual exchange.

Structure

Cooperation for the creation of common good is a widely understood concept and in a world where value is often extracted by large organisations with opaque processes and ethics, they are starting to be seen as a way of reinvigorating value transactions within smaller, often under-represented communities of interest, and between organisations that create and use data.

Finding already existing data cooperatives is not easy. Examples such as The Good Data which allow people to control data flow at a browser level and the Swiss-based Health Bank are two known examples, and as the principles of data custodianship for social good become understood there is little to challenge that more would develop.

There are organisations that exhibit cooperative traits but may not themselves be cooperatives or co-owned structures. Open Street Map (OSM) is a resource that is essentially created and administered by the community, with the underlying motivation for OSM being for common good. The open source movement was cited as being the largest example of technological cooperativism, although the largest platform on which cooperative endeavour is expressed (GitHub) is a privately owned Silicon Valley entity.

There are many versions of coops. These have traditionally come out of the needs of the membership who subscribe to them. Structures of these cooperatives have generally been organised around a single class of member – workers, producers, consumers, etc. The single class structure, although creating an equitable environment for those that are members of a particular coop, can tend towards self interest and although they may be bound by the notion of the common good, the mechanism for the creation of the common good or commons is seldom explicit.

Internationally the creation of new forms of cooperatives that explicitly express the development of common good across multiple classes of stakeholders are more abundant. Social co-ops in Italy and Solidarity coops in Canada often provide services such as healthcare, education and social care. Could these types of cooperative be more relevant for our networked and distributed age?

Michel Bauwens founder of the P2P Foundation talks about the creation of these new forms of cooperatives, and how it is necessary to wean ourselves off the notion of cooperativism as a means of participation in a capitalist economy, to one that builds a commons both material and immaterial. This commons would be subscribed to by other commons creating entities and licenced to non-commons creating organisations.

Would a data cooperative necessarily adopt these newer forms of distributed and commons creating structure? There appears to be a consensus that commons creating, multi-stakeholders cooperatives are positive, but is this model easily understood? And can individual circumstances especially when dealing with communities based around sensitive issues, create an environment for sharing beyond a single class? A single class cooperative may seem to be a simpler, immediate solution for a community of people who have specific needs and issues and where strong trust relationships need to be maintained.

It is understood that personal data empowerment is not just about selling data to the highest bidder and any organisation acting as a data intermediary would need to be able to accommodate the complexity of reasons as to why people donate or give. Even though economic gain might seem an obvious attraction for people, motivations are more complex and often financial incentives can be detrimental to the process of participation and giving.

From The Good Data’s perspective data cooperatives should split the data layer from the service layer. The cooperative should control the data layer and enable/choose others to build the service layer as it is likely that data cooperatives would not have the capacity or expertise to create end to end solutions.

The structure of the data cooperative should encourage maximum participation and consent, although 100% participation and engagement is unrealistic. Flat structures have a tendency towards hierarchy through operational efficiency and founder endeavour. Even though the majority of members align with the aims of the cooperative, it doesn’t necessarily mean that they want to be constantly encumbered with the burden of governance.

A certain pragmatism and sensitivity needs to be adopted to the model of cooperative that a group may want to adopt. There are examples of communities maintaining informality to enable themselves to be less burdened by expectation, to maintain independence or minimise liability. Advocates of data cooperatives need to be sensitive to this.

Purpose

Data Cooperatives need to have a simplicity of purpose. What do they do, for whom and why? Is the building of data cooperative around particular issue enough? Or do we need to take a look at the data cooperative as being a platform that allows the representation of personal data across a broader portfolio of interests?

Although the there is a tendency to see a data cooperative as being a mechanism to generate bulk, high worth data that can then be used to draw down value from large organisations, a more appropriate application might be in enabling a smaller community of interest, perhaps around a particular health condition, to draw down certain services or to negotiate for a better deal. The notion of withholding data from public service providers might be seen to be detrimental to the delivery of that service, but it could also create a more balanced decision making process. It is also known that many providers of service collect more data than they actually need for the delivery of that service. Empowering people to take more control over their data may create a situation where the practice of excessive data gathering is curtailed.

Data literacy

Ideally for a data cooperative to be most effective, the level of data literacy amongst members would need to be raised so that members could make more informed decisions about what data was given away or used. This ideal might be difficult to achieve without a broader awareness raising campaign about the power of personal data. The revealing of the ways that security agencies collect data by Edward Snowdon was sensational and although it highlighted that we unintentionally give away a lot, it didn’t build a wider popular discourse around protection and usage of personal data.

Raising the level of data awareness amongst cooperative members would create more informed decision making, but this task would need to be delivered in a nuanced way and ultimately some people might not engage. This could be the case with people who are dependant on service and have little power or real choice as to their decisions.

For a data cooperative to represent its membership and control the flow of data it needs to have legitimacy, know and understand the data assets of the membership, and have the authority to negotiate with those data assets on the members behalf.

Decisions around data sharing and understanding the potential consequences are difficult and complex. As an intermediary the cooperative would need to ensure that individual members were able to give informed consent. We have to know what we have and what it does for us, in order to utilise it.

Mechanisms of consent

There already exist mechanisms for the creation of consent. These by and large create the environment for proxy voting in decision making processes. A mechanism such as Liquid Feedback – popularised by the Pirate Parties, where an individual bestows voting rights to a proxy who aligns to their position, is a representative democracy process, the ‘liquid’ element allows proxy rights to be revoked at any point in the decision making process. Other mechanisms might follow along the lines of the Platform Preferences initiative developed by W3C, which sought to create privacy policies that could be understood by browsers which was ultimately considered too difficult to implement. A potentially easier solution might work on the basis of preset preferences based on trusted individuals or the creation of archetype or persona based preferences that people can select.

Can one organisation be representative of the broader range of ethical positions held within a membership structure? For practical reasons the data cooperative might have a high level ethical policy but individuals within the cooperative are empowered to make data sharing choices based on their personal ethical standpoint. This could be enabled by proxy or preset data sharing preferences.

The alternative to having data coops with high level ethical aims that also represent multiple ethical standpoints could be to have smaller federated or distributed niche organisations where individuals could allow the organisation to use their data on their behalf.

 Right to personal data

In order for an individual to allow an organisation to use data on their behalf we need to have control over our individual personal data. Legislation in many countries offers a framework about how personal data is used and shared amongst organisations, but these don’t necessarily create a mechanism that allows users to retrieve their data and use it for other purposes. Often within the End User License Agreement (EULA) or Terms of Service that come with software products an individual may find that their data is inexorably tied up with the function of the service. A function of a data cooperative might be to help individuals understand these agreements and add to the commons of knowledge about them.

How would the argument for greater individual data rights be made when service providers see that personal data mediated through their product part of their intellectual property? Work has been done through the midata initiative and the development of personal data passports – where individuals grant rights to organisations to use the data for delivery of service. UK Government has supported this initiative, but has backed away from underpinning the programme with changes in legislation. This lack of regulatory enforcement may limit the efficacy of any initiative that seeks to grant individuals’ rights and agency over their data.

The development of a personal data licence may aid the creation of data cooperatives but the form of the licence and the mechanism for compliance might be weakened without an underpinning regulatory framework. At present there is a certain level of cynicism around voluntary codes of practice where power imbalances exist between stakeholders. The lack of legislation might also create a chilling effect on the ability of data cooperatives to gain the trust of their membership.

Data empowerment is promoted in Project VRM (Vendor Relation Management) developed by Doc Searls at Harvard University. The ability for an individual to have control over their data is an integral component of developing an open market for personal data-based services and theoretically giving more choice. The criticism voiced about midata and Project VRM is that they are too individualistic and focus on economic rather than social transaction with ethical aims. Even with these criticisms the development of a market logic to enable large organisations to engage with the process of individual data empowerment might be beneficial for the long term aims of data cooperatives and for the development of innovative service for social good.

Ultimately if the individual isn’t able to have control over their data or the data derived from them then the function of the cooperative would be inhibited.

Creating value from data

It could emerge that scale could dictate the eventual form of the data cooperative. Many potential clients of a data cooperative might require this, which would see the need to build a data asset that contained upwards of 500,000 users. The Good Data cooperative’s aim is to achieve this scale to become viable.

A challenge that all data cooperatives would face would be how they maintain a relationship with their membership so that service based upon, or value that is extracted from the data is not subject to unforeseen supply-side problems. If a data cooperative represented its membership and entered into licensing relationships with third party organisations on behalf of its membership, what would be reasonable for a client to expect, especially if individual members had the rights to revoke access to data at anytime? With larger scale data cooperatives this may not be too much of a problem as scale has the potential to damp down unforeseen effects. The Good Data proposes to get around these issues by only holding data for a limited amount of time essentially minimising disruptions in data supply by creating a buffer.

Smaller scale data cooperatives, especially ones that are created around single issues may have difficulty in engaging in activity that requires service guarantees. Developing a mechanism for federation, cumulatively creating data at scale might be a potential solution, but creating a federated system of consent may be more difficult to achieve. As suggested previously economic activity might be a low priority for such organisations where the main purpose might be to represent members and create the environment for informed service decisions.

The challenge facing federated data cooperatives and how they interact is undefined. It has been noted that building distributed and federated systems is difficult, and that centralised systems persist due to operational efficiencies. The advent of alternative forms of ‘block chain’ transaction could enable distributed organisations to coexist using ‘rules based’ or algorithmic democracy. But alternative transaction systems and currencies often face challenges when they interface with dominant and established forms of currency and value.

How data cooperatives could practically use these new mechanisms for exchange needs to be explored.

Attendees:

Reuben Binns
Mark Braggins
Alex Fink
Steven Flower
Robin Gower
Frank Kresin
Marcos Menendez
Annemarie Naylor
Julian Tait
Kristof van Tomme
Ben Webb

Open : Data : Cooperation – 20th October 2014

Open Data Manchester Special – Open : Data : Cooperation – Building a data cooperative
20th October 2014, 1pm – 5.30pm

The Shed,
MMU John Dalton Building
Chester Street
Manchester
M1 5GD – Detailed directions here

An afternoon of scene setting and workshops creating a framework for building data cooperatives. This event is for anyone working in this area and is a must for people who are interested in new forms of cooperative structure, open data, data custodianship and data rights.

The event follows on from previous sessions run in Manchester and Berlin. It is open and free to participate.

Why create a data cooperative?

Our modern, technologised society exists on data. Our everyday interactions leave a trace that is often invisible and unknown to us. The services that we interact with, the daily transactions that we make and the way we negotiate through our everyday generate data, building a picture of who we are and what we do. This data also enables aggregators to predict, personalise and intervene seamlessly and sometimes invisibly. Even for the most technically literate, keeping track of what we do and don’t give away is daunting. There is a need to stem the unbridled exploitation of personal data by both public and private organisations, to empower individuals to have more control over the data they create, and for people to have more of a say in the services that are built upon and informed by this data. Data cooperatives may help rebalance the relationship between those that create data and those that seek to exploit it whilst also creating the environment for fair and consensual exchange.

A synopsis of the discussion that took in Berlin can be found here

Sign up on the Eventbrite page here

An agenda will be circulated nearer the event date

This event is sponsored by Cooperative News