When I was in high school, I was on the debate team for three years. As a relatively unknown and definitively underbudgeted team, we often took advantage of the open evidence files available to us. While this proved somewhat useful, we quickly realized that the majority of bulk of emergent scholarship was still largely inaccessible\u00a0 or selectively available through paywall and at the end of the day, most of the interpretation, done in rounds by overconfident high school students, intentionally misconstrued or misrepresented scholarship to support their own arguments anyways. Analogously, while open data has the potential to increase transparency, it can just as easily be abused. In theory, open data initiatives democratize the balance of power in society and many have rhetorically phrased it as such; however, at the point where initiatives may either maintain the status quo or worse work to empower the privileged while failing to reach the most disenfranchised, the impacts must be carefully considered before we willfully embrace the “free exchange solves all” mentality.<\/p>\n
Neoliberal thought regarding free exchange emphatically believes in the in infallible nature of open markets. The \u201cmarketplace\u201d of data is the marketplace of ideas. And contrary to the collectively internalized belief that data is not biased, the human beings that create, evaluate, and use the data certainly can be.<\/p>\n
For me, here are two issues that must be addressed in the subsequent conversation on open data sourcing especially as it pertains to governance:<\/p>\n
First, who will use open data<\/p>\n
And secondly, what will they use it for?<\/p>\n
To answer the first question, I would offer two examples. Court proceedings are regularly documented and have been made open and available to the public for a long time. Yet, somewhat unsurprisingly, people are generally disinterested the vast majority of cases–so disinterested in fact that some have taken it upon themselves to spice up the information.<\/p>\n
Court proceedings like \u00a0Rick Allen v. Georgia are so obscure and bizarere, that we naturally gravitate towards their absurdist but also hilarious ethos. The anomaly cases that usually have little political salience get picked up as entertainment. Had it not been for the animators, Rick and Morty I would never have, of my own volition, looked into the spectacular case which would have been at great personal loss. (As a warning, the case is incredibly crass and not at all appropriate for school) This case being the exception, the vast majority of court transcripts are remarkably boring.<\/p>\n
Even Supreme Court cases often lack the dramatic salience necessary for user interest. Especially given\u00a0 the restrictions regarding camera-use, the audio alone is seldom enough to attract attention.<\/p>\n
In an episode of This Week Tonight, John Oliver candidly acknowledges this. Then, in the best way possible, he makes Supreme Court proceedings far more enjoyable (by using puppies!!)<\/p>\n
https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=fJ9prhPV2PI<\/a><\/p>\n https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=tug71xZL7yc&t=31s<\/a><\/p>\n The point being, if the present public does not feel the inclination to look up open data sources now without dramatic intervention, it seems overly optimistic to believe a merely expanding the body of sources will radically change the public\u2019s behavior to become more proactive about seeking out data.<\/p>\n Furthermore, to the extent that data collection sources are still created by and model human phenomenon, even if supposedly objective computer programs are tasked with interpreting a set of inputs, without contextualization, the output is not neutral.<\/p>\n Rob Kitchin of Maynooth University elucidates many of these same concerns explaining that businesses interested in open data, have \u201cthe real agenda…to get access to expensively produced data for no cost, and thus a heavily subsidised infrastructural support from which they can leverage profit, whilst at the same time removing the public sector from the marketplace and weakening its position as the producer of such data.\u201d<\/p>\n He furthers that, \u201cbecause open data often concerns a body\u2019s own activities, especially when supplemented by key performance indicators, they facilitate public sector reform and reorganisation that promotes a neoliberal, New Public Management ethos and private sector interests (McClean 2011; Longo 2011).\u201d Essentially, the rate at which human jobs will be lost computer automation will be radically accelerated by open data. Perhaps from a business and economics perspective, this is a great way to cut costs, however, from a humanist standpoint, it is rhetorically deceitful to market open data as a way to empower the people if the way in which this technology is introduced is intended to undercut jobs and push out workers.<\/p>\n Additionally, Kitchin offers a critique of so called \u201chackathons,\u201d events that use the collective power of a roomful of computer programmers to go deep-diving for the data that source these initiatives. The critique is helpful in considering the ethos of programmer culture as relatively separate from and disinterested in civic impact.<\/p>\n http:\/\/progcity.maynoothuniversity.ie\/2013\/11\/four-critiques-of-open-data-initiatives\/<\/a><\/p>\n Furthermore, as per our discussion with David Eaves, the future of open data seems headed towards the private sector in spectacularly American open market fashion. With the latest Equifax breach, however, there is reasonable ground to consider if the structure of the private sector will be incentivized to present and protect data objectively and intentionally. Elizabeth Warren brings this up in a recent Senate hearing on the Equifax breech which I mention primarily because the way she handles questioning is incredible and very amusing.<\/p>\n