Week 3: Advising & Working with Decision Makers

Time: Monday, July 20 at 11 am (Zoom link will be shared on Slack at in the Announcements channel on the day of the session)
Session Leads: Amar Ashar & Malavika Jayaram

Description: There are a growing number of examples that point toward a change in the way public policy is made in the digital age. This new context, which we refer to as networked policymaking, involves a greater variety of actors and voices, often collaborating in formal and informal networks, taking part in a public consideration and debate of policy questions via digital media. This (interactive!) discussion will explore networked approaches to informing decision makers including policymakers drawing from examples like the Global Network of Internet & Society Centers and the Digital Asia Hub.

Guiding Questions:

• What are the levers, tools, and instruments available to policymakers and how can academics (students, researchers, faculty) play a role in the creation of digital policy?

• What are the ways emergent technologies - such as AI – should be regulated and if so, how do we distinguish new problems from age old challenges?

• Where are there information and power asymmetries between sectors, institutions, and individuals and how should people contributing to policy research prioritize their agendas?

• What are different futures that we can imagine? How much is digital policymaking a predictive vs. responsive exercise?

Required readings
Networked Policymaking Paper (read up to p. 3 and skim the rest)

Drones and Dreams: A Speculative Sprint Story Collection (just the intro, but feel free to browse stories)

(Re)Imagining Intersectional Democracy from Black Feminism to Hashtag Activism

Additional readings

• OECD AI Policy Observatory

• Trends and Data Tool

• Translating Research for Action: Ideas and Examples for Informing Digital Policy

• Making Public Policy in the Digital Age

Time: Monday, July 20 at 3 pm (Zoom link will be shared on Slack at in the Announcements channel on the day of the session)
Session Leads: Mutale Nkonde

Description: This session outlines the role nonprofits play in the field of public interest tech, looking at university affiliated centers like BKC, start ups like mine, Data & Society and the role social justice organizations have on shaping the tech sector.

Guiding Questions:

• • What is public interest tech,

  • What is digital civil society?

  • How is power built?

Required readings

• What is public interest tech (9:36 minutes)

• Invention Digital Civil Society (17:09 minutes)

• A Case for Public Interest Technology by Mutale Nkonde

• Machine Bias by Julia Angwin, Jeff Larson, Surya Mattu and Lauren Kirchner, ProPublica

Additional readings

• Advancing Racial Literacy in Tech

• Automated Anti Blackness

• Race After Technology: Abolitionist Tools for the New Jim Code

• Black Software: The internet and Racial Justice from AfroNet to Black Lives Matter

• Automated Inequality

• Artificial Unintelligence

• Weapons of Math Destruction

Time: Tuesday, July 21 at 11 am (Zoom link will be shared on Slack at in the Announcements channel on the day of the session)
Session Leads: Chris Bavitz

Description: Those who develop digital technology in all its forms have the capacity to do so in a way that promotes good or causes harm. The actions of those who use digital technology, similarly, may be beneficial or detrimental to society. How do we promote good behavior and discourage bad behavior from tech developers and users?

This session will address that question by looking at the who, the where, and the how of influencing tech developer and user conduct. It will consider which actors are best positioned to influence those involved in the development and use of digital technologies, which nodes in the applicable tech development architecture are most susceptible to positive influence, and what tools are at the disposal of those who wish to incentivize good conduct and disincentivize bad.

Guiding Questions:

• • Local, state, and federal laws can ensure that buildings are constructed with safety in mind and that people drive at reasonable speeds on our roads just as they can mandate that global tech platforms protect users’ privacy or impose restrictions on the use of third-parties’ intellectual property. What are the benefits of legislative approaches to tech problems, and what are the limitations?

  • How can employees of tech firms influence the actions of their employers?

  • How might consumers use their market power to influence the power of very large companies? Can companies harness the power of their users to influence policymaking on their behalf?

  • What role should private industry initiatives (including multi-stakeholder organizations, industry-driven efforts to create ethical tech principles, and the like) play in dictating best practices? Can such efforts ever have adequate teeth to effect real change? How do such efforts avoid attracting companies that simply want to virtue-signal or whitewash, to draw attention away from bad behaviors?

Required readings

Multi-Stakeholder Organizations

• Michael Samway, "GNI: A Journey of Trust and Making Common Cause, by Michael Samway," Medium.com (October 16, 2018), available at (read all)

• "EFF Resigns from Global Network Initiative: Citing Concerns Over NSA's Impact on Corporate Members, EFF Leaves Industry Group," EFF (October 10, 2013), available at (read all)

Litigation and Amicus Advocacy

• Clinic Staff, "Cyberlaw Clinic Files Amicus Brief on Behalf of Journalists Supporting Transparency," Cyberlaw Clinic Blog (June 3, 2020), available at/ (read blog post, skim brief)

The Legislative Process

• Joy Buolamwini, "Facial Recognition Technology (Part 1): Its Impact on our Civil Rights and Liberties," Written Testimony Before the United States House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform (May 22, 2019), available at (read Sections I - III, pp. 1 - 11)

Administrative Agency Proceedings

• Clinic Staff, "Clinic Teams w/Cathy O’Neil for HUD Comment re: Algorithmic Discrimination," Cyberlaw Clinic Blog (October 21, 2019), available at (read blog post, skim comment)

Public Engagement

• Jonathan Weisman, "In Fight Over Piracy Bills, New Economy Rises Against Old," New York Times (January 18, 2012), available at (read all)

The Influence of Employees and the Labor Market

• Daisuke Wakabayashi and Scott Shane, "Google Will Not Renew Pentagon Contract That Upset Employees," The New York Times (June 1, 2018), available at (read all)

Time: Tuesday, July 21 at 3 pm (Zoom link will be shared on Slack at in the Announcements channel on the day of the session)
Session Leads: Momin Malik

Description: This is a critical and conceptual overview of statistics, followed by a live demonstration of an application of some tools in a data mining use case. For those who want to follow along, I will ask you to install R and RStudio on your computers beforehand (more on that closer to the date).

Guiding Questions:

• What are the core assumptions and mechanisms of statistics?

• What is data mining?

• How does one get started with statistics and data mining?

Required readings

• Harford, Tim. 2014. “Big data: A big mistake?” Significance 11, no. 5 (December): 14–19. - Originally published as: Harford, Tim. 2014. “Big data: are we making a big mistake?” Financial Times Magazine, March 14, 2014. (Paywall, unless you have remaining article views)

• • Breiman, Leo. 2001. “Statistical Modeling: The Two Cultures (with comments and a rejoinder by the author).” Statistical Science 16 (3): 199--231. doi:10.1214/ss/1009213726. - This gets technical; check it out and see how much makes sense or is interesting, but it’s okay if you don’t get to this or don’t get far into it. Also don’t worry about getting to the comments and rejoinder; there is some really interesting stuff in there, but amidst lots of less interesting stuff.

  • If you would like to follow along:

    • Please install 1) the R programming language, and 2) RStudio, on your computer. The instructions for these are relatively straightforward respectively at:

      1. 1. https://cloud.r-project.org/

         2. https://rstudio.com/products/rstudio/download/

         3. If you want to get a head start, please check out this 2-hour tutorial and try to follow along:

            1. Poulson, Barton. “R Programming Tutorial - Learn the Basics of Statistical Computing.” datalab.cc. https://youtu.be/_V8eKsto3Ug

         4. Note that you are also welcome to watch this tutorial after, when you’ve seen a bit of R and are more familiarized/motivated.

Additional readings

• • A historical piece: Friedman, Jerome. 1997. “Data Mining and Statistics: What's the Connection?”

  • NOT AVAILABLE OPEN ACCESS. Contact me on Slack if you'd like access. Lazer, David and Jason Radford. 2017. “Data ex Machina: Introduction to Big Data.” Annual Review of Sociology 43: 19-39.

  • Suggested especially for computer scientists: Cook, John. “The R Language: The Good The Bad & The Ugly.” GOTO Aarhus 2012.

  • An open source and solid textbook is available, with additional resources, as:

    • Zhao, Yanchang. 2015. R and Data Mining: Examples and Case Studies.

    • Friedman, Jerome. 1997. Data Mining and Statistics: What's the Connection?

Time: Wednesday, July 22 at 11am (Zoom link will be shared on Slack at in the Announcements channel on the day of the session)
Session Leads: Mason Kortz

Description: One way activists and advocates effect change is through impact litigation – cases designed not only to provide relief for an individual petitioner but also to set a precedent that moves the law forward nation- or world-wide. This session will look at how academics can get involved in impact litigation, with a particular focus on the role of amicus curiae or “friend of the court” briefs.

Guiding Questions:

• Why would an individual or organization want to enact change through the judicial system as opposed to the legislature or the executive branch?

• What special insight might an academic have that could be valuable to a court in deciding a case? What is the proper role of amici curiae in legal proceedings?

Required readings

• Read: Impact Litigation: An Introductory Guide

• Read: Top 10 ways to “friend” SCOTUS

• Skim: No. 19-3438: Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosive

Time: Wednesday, July 22 at 7pm (Zoom link will be shared on Slack at in the Announcements channel on the day of the session)
Session Leads: Joy A. Lo

Description: Science communications is a minefield. Faulty communication chains between scientists and the press make the already difficult task of framing and translating research into effective communications even more challenging. As researchers, typically we need to adhere to objectivity, while also speaking our minds, but not overstep, so that we’re not perceived as emotional, sensationalist, or “media hungry” by our peers. As a field sometimes we are studying platforms without established, reliable methods, so it becomes risky to even comment when we don’t have sufficient data or papers to analyze. In the context of this tricky media landscape, what are best practices for talking to the press?

The session will cover an introduction to media and some of the basic techniques needed for you to engage effectively with media and get the story results you want. We will also talk about new challenges emerging in today’s media and research landscapes.

Guiding Questions:

• What are examples you’ve seen of successful science/ tech/ research storytelling?

• What are examples you’ve seen of unsuccessful science/ tech/ research news stories, or stories that reveal inherent challenges when it comes to translating tech research into news?

• Communications Goals: When you’re talking with a journalist, what are your goals?

• Media Skills: When you’re talking with a journalist, what skills do you need to employ?

• Do’s & Don’ts: When you’re engaging with media, what do you want to avoid and what do you want to make sure you do well?

• Updating Best Practices to 2020: What’s new today that makes things different?

Required readings

• “Who’s a Bot? Who’s Not?” - New York Times, June 16, 2020 (7 min)

• “Google Hides News, Tricked by Fake Claims” - Wall Street Journal, May 15, 2020. Do not need to read; just skim for mentions of Harvard, BKC, and Lumen (5 min)

Time: Thursday, July 23 at 11am (Zoom link will be shared on Slack at in the Announcements channel on the day of the session)
Session Leads: Christo Wilson & Rebecca Weiss

Note: This is an actual BKC event with a larger audience. It will be run as a webinar like other events BKC runs and not as the typical open room that we have been running for the Summer Institute. We wanted you to get the experience of a live BKC event while you were here.

Description: In the past few years, issues such as algorithmic accountability and the spread of misinformation have risen to the forefront of social and technology policy discussions. Regulators, civil society, policy-makers, and researchers all have a strong desire to determine the effect that tech platforms have on society. However, these communities face a severe information asymmetry problem, as tech platforms unilaterally own the user data that could inform debates about their social impact. Alternative sources of data that could enable transparency into these systems, such as Internet research panels, are either methodologically problematic or cost-prohibitive. We’ll present the state of online measurement platforms as they exist today, why they are not sufficient to address the scope and scale of the social problems of the Internet, and what we hope the future holds for enabling science and activism through novel industry-research collaboration.

Useful Resources

• Misinformation in action: fake news exposure is linked to lower trust in media, higher trust in government when your side is in power

• Reasoning about Political Bias in Content Moderation

Time: Thursday, July 23 at 3 pm (Zoom link will be shared on Slack at in the Announcements channel on the day of the session)
Session Leads: Brenda Dvoskin

Description: Nobody seems satisfied with the current structures that govern speech on the biggest social media platforms today. The idea of leaving all these decisions in the hands of two or three powerful CEOs is unappealing. At the same time, governments are not in a good position to substitute private regulation completely. In that context, the possibility of giving more power to civil society organizations, academic, and external experts to participate in the governance of online content could be a way forward. My doctoral research studies how social media companies have been engaging external stakeholders in writing and updating their content moderation rules to date. In this session, I will present my research framework and preliminary findings.

Guiding Questions

• Can we trust outside experts to regulate content on social media platforms?

• What may be their limitations? What opportunities can this model present?

No required readings

Time: Thursday, July 23 at 7pm (Zoom link will be shared on Slack at in the Announcements channel on the day of the session)
Session Leads: Matthew Pearl & Juan Ortiz Freuler

Description: This session aims to offer an interactive discussion on how technologists can drive effective legislative and regulatory change, with a particular focus on influencing politicians and legislators who have views that are different from the views you are advocating. Topics covered will include how to identify and research key stakeholders and governmental organizations and officials to engage with; how to draft legislation and regulatory filings; critical elements of legislative and regulatory outreach plans; and tips for effective advocacy in meetings with government officials and others.

Guiding Questions

• How do you identify the public policy you need to change, and the key government officials and stakeholders that need to be persuaded?

• What should you do to gather information about the government officials and other stakeholders?

• How do you develop a broader outreach strategy that ensures your cause gets sufficient attention and has a good chance of being enacted?

• If a government official radically disagrees with your perspective, what are some strategies you can employ to persuade them?

• If you are presenting technical issues to a non-technical audience, how do you put the issue in terms that they can understand, but that is still accurate?

Pre-Readings

• Understanding political culture: Joseph Fouche The Portrait Of A Politician (Stefan Zweig) (pgs. 12-14, 18-19, 21-28, 30, 37-38, 55, 69, 81-82, 86-87, 90-91, 93-96),

• On argumentation: Most people are bad at arguing. These 2 techniques will make you better.(Vox)

Additional Readings

• Political Action: The Problem of Dirty Hands (Walzer):

• On negotiation (6:35 minutes)

Time: Friday, July 24 at 11am (Zoom link will be shared on Slack at in the Announcements channel on the day of the session)
Session Leads: Urs Gasser

Description: In this interactive session, we'll talk about the different forms of impact academics can have in the real world. We'll use a series of practical examples from the Internet & society policy work at the Berkman Klein Center to distill some lessons learned, both in terms of opportunities and challenges.

Guiding Questions

• What are the different forms of "impact" academics can have in the world?

• What are key interfaces between the worlds of academia and policy-making (as one impact area)?

• What is different about academic impact versus, for example, impact by a consulting or lobbying firm?

Required Reading

• Ashar, Amar, Robert Faris, Urs Gasser. 2016. Networked Policy Making Avenues: Assessing the Role of Academics in Digital Policy (September 23, 2016). Networked Policy Series, Berkman Klein Center Research Publication No. 2016-14