The trend of cities working with data from platform urbanism companies predates the development of the data sharing mandate as a regulatory mechanism. Before cities were demanding data via regulations, platforms began to flex their newfound data-derived power and influence by sharing data voluntarily, often for image-enhancing PR points, in a trend that came to be known as "data philanthropy". Platform data philanthropy, a term that includes private sector open data publication, the sharing of more sensitive user-data with government for specific public purpose, and similar instances of voluntary corporate data sharing gave city halls a first taste of the civic potential of platform data to local governments, serving as an important precursor to data sharing mandates.
Reading:
"Sharing Data Is a Form of Corporate Philanthropy" by Matt Stempeck, Harvard Business Review, July 24, 2014
"Mapping the Next Frontier of Open Data: Corporate Data Sharing" by Stefan G. Verhulst with David Sangokoya, the Internet Monitor 2014: Reflections on a Digital World, January 5, 2015
"Data Philanthropy: Unlocking the Power of Private Data for Public Good" by Brice McKeever, Solomon Greene, Graham MacDonald, Peter A. Tatian, and Deondre' Jones, The Urban Institute, July 24, 2018
Examples of Platform Data Philanthropy
Google flu trends, launched in 2008
Humanitarian OpenStreetMaps Team (HOT), launched in January 2009
Strava Metro, launched May 2014
Waze Connected Citizens Program (CCP), launched in October 2014
Uber voluntary data sharing with the city of Boston, launched January 2015
Uber Movement, launched January 2017
The rise of platform urbanism prompted calls for regulation as well as collaboration. This is when we first start to see policies requiring early sharing economy platform companies like Uber and AirBnB to obtain a license from a local government in order to operate—with some cities requiring data reporting as part of that process.
In these early days, platforms—known for “regulatory hacking” and heralded as bringing revolutionary and needed services to urban residents and visitors—often did not play nice, and cities had less leverage and technical expertise. As a result, only a few cities (mostly relatively large metros, considered “leaders” in municipal innovation) had regulations mandating data sharing, and in reality even some policies that asked for data in name required only a static report filed infrequently, rather than truly machine readable data. The lack of clear successes of the resultant data sharing programs was perhaps a factor in the limited spread of these policies to other jurisdictions.
Reading
"TRANSPORTATION NETWORK COMPANIES AND THE RIDESOURCING INDUSTRY A Review of Impacts and Emerging Regulatory Frameworks for Uber", prepared for the City of Vancouver by Victor Ngo, The University of British Columbia School of Community and Regional Planning, October 2015
Cityscapes and Cyberspace: on the emergence of platform urbanism by Jathan Sadowski
In a post-techlash world, cities had more political leverage and public support to take on platform urbanism. The form of this most recent iteration of sharing economy start-up, dockless micromobility, also gave cities more practical leverage: it’s a lot easier to impound a bike or scooter than to seize an automobile or home. Learning lessons from their experiences with Uber and AirBnB, and more experienced with utilizing open standards like LIVES and GBFS, they passed regulations seeking data. LADOTs development of the Mobility Data Specification and the emergence of the Open Mobility Foundation (OMF) to maintain and support not only that technical standard, but also that regulatory approach helped spread a stronger, more technically sophisticated form of data sharing mandate to cities across the country and internationally. It also alarmed privacy activists and ignited a fight over corporate platform data that brought high profile lawsuits and continued debate.
Drones, delivery robots, autonomous vehicles, and other sensor- or network-based data-generative urban technologies are coming to cities. Data aggregators and brokers offer unprecedented access to private data. Emboldened cities are eying these as well as existing urban platforms and other private sector sources for data and considering how an MDS-like approach to data sharing and governance might work beyond micromobility. Increasingly concerned privacy advocates are pushing back against local governments alongside platform corporations. Third party aggregators and intermediaries are productizing data as a service, academics and advocates imagine data utilities or collaboratives, and cities like Barcelona are piloting decentralized, commons-based approaches to ethical platform data sharing, while the EU considers sweeping reforms that would open up platform data to new public scrutiny.
In short, the future is up for grabs. What might what we are seeing on the ground now with PUDS policies and programs suggests about where we might be headed?