Announcing FutureCast: A New Game Framework For Exploring Pathways Of Change

Predictions

from the announcing-futurecast dept

As you’re hopefully aware, over the last few years, our Copia Institute think tank, in partnership with Randy Lubin’s Leveraged Play, have been using games and game-like tools for exploring complex realities in the present, as well as exploring potential future scenarios. On the latter front, we’ve done things like our Threatcast election disinformation simulator, our Hindsight 2030 game exploring future trends, and our (suddenly much more relevant!) brainstorming game to explore potential positive AI futures.

Over the course of 2022 we worked on another fun project, this time with the United Nations’ Global Pulse group, which is the Secretary General’s “Innovation Lab.” They’ve been doing a bunch of experiments over the past few years regarding strategic foresight, and asked us if we could build a flexible game/framework that could be useful in trying to understand “pathways of change.” The end result, which was just recently released by UN Global Pulse, is FutureCast, which is a highly adaptable tool to allow anyone to explore future opportunities and challenges in many different scenarios. Its main use is in bringing together groups of stakeholders to explore future scenarios.

We initially developed it to explore how different stakeholders in a particular country were viewing potential opportunities and challenges in upcoming elections, but the tool is flexible enough to use in lots of different scenarios.

Many people may be aware of scenario planning as a strategic foresight tool, and we’re huge fans of scenario planning, and have used it as a tool in a variety of projects. But FutureCast is designed to do something slightly different than scenario planning (and the two can be used together to great effect). With FutureCasting, we’re taking basic future scenarios, and using a process of prompts and responses, to allow different stakeholders to explore potential challenges and opportunities under those scenarios.

In traditional scenario planning, it’s left up to the creators of the scenarios to determine the challenges and opportunities. With FutureCasting, we’ve set up a game-like framework to allow stakeholders themselves to tease out the challenges and opportunities in a variety of scenarios.

The game itself is setup over a period of time horizons (usually three) where participants are divided into groups. The groups are then given the context (a light scenario) for the first time horizon, followed by a prompt about something that is happening in that scenario, which they’re then asked to describe. After they’ve discussed the prompt and come up with an answer, the sheet is handed to a different group that is participating (who answered their own prompt and passed along that response to another group) to answer the follow up prompt, based on the response of the first group.

So, as an example, in a scenario about a future election, players are given a light scenario of things that are happening:

Followed by a prompt about (in this case) a specific policy change that has excited people. Once they’ve come up with what that policy change might be, they hand it off to another group, who is asked what might be an “unexpected consequence” of that policy change:

The key to making this framework effective is setting up good context scenarios for each round, as well as good prompts. In the FutureCast guide, we include a bunch of example prompts to help people develop good prompts. Here are just a few examples:

The UN has already piloted this system multiple times in a pilot country, and found that it was a powerful tool to explore different hopes and fears from a variety of stakeholders regarding upcoming elections.

The UN is releasing the framework under a Creative Commons (CC-BY-NC-SA) license, and we’re hopeful that others will make use of the framework in a variety of settings. This was a very fun, and very different, kind of project for us to work on, and we’re excited that the project is now out in the world.

Filed Under: futurecast, scenario planning, strategic foresite, un, un global pulse

Add The United Nations To The List Of Entities Helping The Chinese Government Oppress Its Minority Uighur Population

(Mis)Uses of Technology

from the can-you-not???!!!! dept

It’s no secret the Chinese government wants to control its population through pervasive surveillance. It’s also no secret the government wants very badly to eliminate a certain sector of its population with (in every sense of the words) extreme prejudice.

China’s minority Uighur Muslim population presents an existential threat to a government that is tasked with controlling the hearts and minds of billions of residents. The Uighurs don’t buy into the government narrative or whatever passes for a national religion in a country where almost every religious expression has been suppressed.

The Chinese government claims to have no national religion. This may be true. But it will only tolerate so many, and Islam isn’t one of them. The government has engaged in the mass disappearance of this minority. And it has done so with an alarming amount of assistance from non-Chinese entities, ranging from American tech companies to foreign government officials.

It’s not like anyone’s having trouble divining the Chinese government’s intent when it comes to its Uighur population. But even multinational entities charged with keeping the (worldwide) peace and preventing large-scale human rights abuses are giving China what it wants.

Enter the United Nations, which has apparently become Nations United Against Uighurs, according to this report for Newsweek by Josh Feldman:

The United Nations, the very institution created to “reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights,” is assisting China in its violent efforts to wipe out the Uyghurs by helping the CCP cover its tracks. These were the findings of a recent report in Le Monde about the efforts of UN human rights officer-turned whistleblower Emma Reilly. Reilly claims that prior to every UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) session in recent years, China has requested the names of Uyghur and other Chinese dissidents who were scheduled to speak. And despite this being explicitly forbidden by the UN’s own rules, the UN, according to Reilly, has made it a practice to share this information with Chinese authorities, who use it to harass the dissidents’ families who are still based in China.

True? False? Unconfirmed? Gentlepersons, place your bets. But me personally? I’m siding with confirmed. These complaints about the UN’s willingness to aid and abet at least indirect harassment of Uighur residents seem to have a pretty solid basis. This isn’t a recent development. The Chinese government has wanted Uighurs regulated to the background of their own genocide for years.

Reilly says she first discovered the practice in 2013, when China’s Geneva delegation requested confirmation that certain “anti-government Chinese separatists” were set to speak at the Human Rights Council. Listed individuals included, among others, Dolkun Isa, current president of the World Uyghur Congress.

Emma Reilly, of course, is now faring worse than either the UN or the Chinese government atrocities the UN is helping enable. Despite official confirmation of her allegations by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), she was fired from her position the day after French newspaper Le Monde reported on her accusations.

Meanwhile, the UN tries to have it both ways.

The UN in fact confirmed Reilly’s allegations in 2017, when the OHCHR acknowledged that it confirms attendees’ names with Chinese authorities who “regularly ask the UN Human Rights Office… whether particular NGO delegates are attending the forthcoming session.” So too, did a 2019 UN tribunal confirm “the practice of providing names of human rights defenders to the Chinese delegation.”

Despite confirming the Chinese government’s abuse of UN processes, the UN Secretary-General claimed it blew the Chinese government off when it determined it had no basis to request these names. This assertion was rejected by a UN judge, who said the OHCHR had lied about its actual responses to the Chinese government’s demands for names of speakers it wished to silence.

But this declaration hasn’t changed the math much for the censorial and violent Chinese government. It still gets to participate in worldwide discussions about governance and demand information on UN speakers it doesn’t agree with for the apparent purpose of engaging in witness intimidation. It’s not that no one can see what’s going on in China. It’s that, for the most part, those with the power to attempt to force positive change have decided they’re outmatched and outgunned by a government whose bark has proven so efficient it never needs to bite. Someone needs to call China’s bluff. But those who can not only refuse to challenge the international bully, but actively participate in actions that consolidate its power.

Filed Under: china, surveillance, uighurs, un

Russia Disconnects Itself From The Internet, Asks UN To Let It Have More Control Of Internet Usage Around The World

(Mis)Uses of Technology

from the hey-if-it's-good-enough-for-state-sponsored-cybercriminals... dept

The Russian government has successfully disconnected itself from the world. “Internet sovereignty” is the term the government prefers. That’s what the Russian government actually calls the law signed into effect in May.

The idea is to isolate the Russian internet from the internet the rest of the world uses. It’s not to protect Russia or Russian internet users. It’s to force all Russian internet traffic through Roskomnadzor servers, which will allow the government to surveil its citizens’ internet use, presumably to facilitate censorship efforts and prosecutions.

Lots of experts doubted the plan was feasible. At best, it would subject all Russian internet traffic to government surveillance. At worst, it would cause critical systems to fail. The plan was to pull the plug in April. It didn’t happen until December. According to the Russian government, this extreme Balkanization of the internet went off without a hitch.

“It turned out that, in general, that both authorities and telecom operators are ready to effectively respond to possible risks and threats and ensure the functioning of the Internet and the unified telecommunication network in Russia,” said Alexei Sokolov, deputy head of the Ministry of Digital Development, Communications and Mass Media, as cited by multiple Russian news agencies [1, 2, 3, 4].

That’s the only source we have, so trusting this narrative means trusting the Russian government — a government that is claiming it’s essential to seal off its internet to protect it from threats when all it really wants to do is control narratives, perform mass censorship, and hunt down citizens who color outside the lines.

Russia wants to make its policy an everywhere policy. Its proposal — currently being considered by the United Nations — pushes for more internet sovereignty everywhere. Again, this tool of censorship and control is being portrayed as an anti-cybercrime tool meant to secure nations, rather than censor citizens.

It seems harmless enough in Newspeak:

The representative of the Russian Federation, presenting the draft, said cybercrime threatens entire sectors and is a crucial national security priority. Despite the importance of the issue, there is a lack of an instrument to tackle it, and until last year’s resolution 73/187, the General Assembly had not addressed the need for a unified conceptual framework. While inclusive international dialogue has commenced, its geographic scope is “limited”, and there is a clear need to bolster international cooperation, he said. Stating that the draft complements similar initiatives — including the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime — he said it must also take on board work done by the Expert Group to Conduct a Comprehensive Study on Cybercrime in Vienna. He pointed out that the draft resolution “does not cost much, at less than $200,000”, and fosters a more just, balanced world order in the digital sphere by ending “club-based” agreements.

A draft of this proposal [PDF] has already been approved by the UN. Maybe the UN should have looked a little closer at the parties behind the proposal — all of which already engage in strict control of internet services and engage in mass censorship.

Belarus, Cambodia, China, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Myanmar, Nicaragua, Russian Federation and Venezuela

The proposal says things about “cooperation,” but the only cooperation being asked for is assistance in making it easier to run country-specific versions of the internet.

The resolution — Countering The Use Of Information And Communications Technologies For Criminal Purposes — would create a new cybercrime treaty written by Russia, a country analysts have said is cracking down on Internet freedom at home to stifle opposition to the Kremlin.

“The Russians clearly are interested in pushing their vision of what the Internet should look like in the future, and that’s conflating this idea of cybercrime with cybersecurity and cyber controls,” a State Department official told media on December 19.

Russia wants “a form of lockdown on information” over the Internet and a “curtailment of those freedoms” that the United States stands for, the State Department official said.

There’s also the attendant irony of Russia leading the fight against misinformation and the use of the internet for criminal purposes. The countries in agreement on this proposal routinely engage in state-sponsored attacks on foreign government entities and Russia is internationally infamous for its interference in the last US presidential election. Russia wants all the best foxes to guard the internet hen house. That the draft passed with plenty of support indicates the world is loaded with foxes who see only an upside to taking control of the internet their citizens have access to.

Filed Under: censorship, control, internet, russia, splinternet, surveillance, un

WIPO Now Gets Into The Extrajudicial, Zero Due Process, Censorship Act Over Sites It Declares 'Infringing'

Copyright

from the not-this-again dept

Every few years this kind of thing pops up. Some ignorant organization or policymaker thinks “oh, hey, the easy way to ‘solve’ piracy is just to create a giant blacklist.” This sounds like a simple solution… if you have no idea how any of this works. Remember, advertising giant GroupM tried just such an approach a decade ago, working with Universal Music to put together a list of “pirate sites” for which it would block all advertising. Of course, who ended up on that list? A bunch of hip hop news sites and blogs. And even the personal site of one of Universal Music’s own stars was suddenly deemed an “infringing site.”

These kinds of mistakes highlight just how fraught such a process is — especially when it’s done behind the scenes by organizations that face no penalty for overblocking. In such cases you always get widespread overblocking based on innuendo, speculation, and rumor, rather than any legitimate due process or court adjudication concerning infringement. Even worse, if there was actual infringement going on, one possible legal remedy would involve getting a site to take down that content. Under a “list” approach, it’s just basically a death penalty for the entire site.

That’s why it’s especially ridiculous that WIPO, the World Intellectual Property Organization, a part of the UN, has decided to leap gleefully into the space with one of these “blacklists” of evil piratey sites.

WIPO, which is part of the United Nations, was founded more than 50 years ago with the aim of protecting intellectual property. This includes combating online piracy, something it hopes to facilitate with its ?BRIP? Database, short for ?Building Respect for Intellectual Property.?

So, uh, what’s the process to get on the list? Surely it must involve a court of law determining that a site is engaged in copyright infringement, right? Oh, of course not.

The goal of the project is simple: allow stakeholders from member states to report problematic sites and share this list with advertisers, so they can block bad apples. This will result in less money going to pirate sites, making it harder for them to generate profit.

“Stakeholders”?

?The BRIP Database is now open for the acceptance of Authorized Contributors from WIPO Member States and Authorized Users from the advertising sector,? WIPO writes.

?It comprises a secure, access-controlled online platform, to which authorized agencies in WIPO Member States may upload lists of websites which deliberately facilitate the infringement of copyright.?

Ah. So, it’s “Authorized Contributors” and “Authorized Users from the advertising sector” and the entire list is secret. It’s “secure, access controlled.” I’m sure that won’t be abused at all.

Not answered:

• What is the process to make sure sites on the list are actually engaged in ongoing infringement?
• Are sites notified?
• Do sites have any due process by which they get to plead their own case?
• Is there any appeals process?
• How are “authorized contributors” vetted and approved?
• Will an authorized contributor lose their authorization if it is found that they have nominated sites incorrectly?
• Is there any way for the public or NGOs to review the list for accuracy?

I’ve sent these questions to WIPO, which has not yet responded at the time of publication.

What’s fairly stunning about all of this is that anyone who knows anything about these issues and how they’ve been treated over the last few decades would recognize the pitfalls of WIPO’s approach with BRIP. And yet… no one at WIPO even seemed to bother to care about some fairly fundamental issues regarding due process and proper adjudication of accusations of infringement. Honestly, it raises significant questions about WIPO’s own understanding of copyright law.

Filed Under: advertising, blacklist, censorship, due process, transparency, un, wipo

UN Says Facebook Is Complicit In The Spread Of Anti-Muslim Hate In Myanmar

Say That Again

from the sort-of-right,-but-approaching-the-problem-the-wrong-way dept

The UN has decided it’s possibly Facebook’s fault things are going so badly in Myanmar. Muslims have been fleeing the country in droves thanks to Myanmar security forces engaging in widespread acts of violence (including rape) against them, urged on by hardline nationalist monks.

For all intents and purposes, Facebook is Myanmar’s internet. Loosening of restrictions on social media access has resulted in a large portion of the population getting all their news (along with all the hate speech the UN is complaining about) via the social media giant. The UN is looking into genocide accusations but has decided to speak up against Facebook first.

Marzuki Darusman, chairman of the UN Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on Myanmar, told reporters that social media had played a “determining role” in Myanmar.

“It has … substantively contributed to the level of acrimony and dissension and conflict, if you will, within the public. Hate speech is certainly of course a part of that. As far as the Myanmar situation is concerned, social media is Facebook, and Facebook is social media,” he said.

The UN Myanmar investigator Yanghee Lee said Facebook was a huge part of public, civil and private life, and the government used it to disseminate information to the public.

When there’s only one main pipeline of info, everything flows through it, whether it’s the official government narrative or government-supported hate speech targeting Myanmar Muslims. The UN feels Facebook has contributed to the violence by not doing enough to remove hate speech.

If these are the UN’s conclusions, it’s severely late to the party. Last fall, The Daily Beast reported Facebook was instrumental in removing reports of anti-Muslim violence the Myanmar government didn’t approve of.

Rohingya activists—in Burma and in Western countries—tell The Daily Beast that Facebook has been removing their posts documenting the ethnic cleansing of Rohingya people in Burma (also known as Myanmar). They said their accounts are frequently suspended or taken down.

The Rohingya people are a Muslim ethnic minority group in Burma. They face extraordinary persecution and violence from the Burmese military; military personnel torch villages, murder refugees, and force hundreds of thousands of people to flee their homes.

Facebook promised to do better after being confronted with this evidence. But it offered no good reason why activists’ posts detailing government atrocities were frequently removed and the accounts posting them locked or suspended. The company did not specifically say whether or not it was responding to government requests for content removal, but its transparency report shows almost no activity related to Myanmar’s government. If this was solely the result of horrendous judgment calls by Facebook moderators, the end result of its moderation efforts has been the loss of human lives.

Even as Muslims are being silenced, the Myanmar government has used Facebook to push its own narrative to a largely captive audience. Shuna Mia, a Rohingya man who spoke to reporters about government-backed rape and murder was found floating headless in a nearby river the following day. According to this Guardian report, the Myanmar government immediately began rewriting history using Facebook as its soapbox.

The day after Shuna was found dead, someone representing the state counsellor of Myanmar (Aung San Suu Kyi’s official title) posted a photo of a headless body on the office’s Facebook page, stamped with the words “Truth teller BEHEADED”. The post claimed Shuna had told the media that security forces had not committed rape or arson, and suggested he was killed by “Muslim insurgents” in retaliation. That directly contradicted local reports, activists and Shuna’s family, who believe he was abducted and beheaded by security forces for speaking to journalists.

This was just part of the government’s efforts to discredit Rohingya people. On the same day, the same Facebook account posted photos of Rohingya women who said they had been raped by security forces. The label “FAKE RAPE” dismissed the countless reports of sexual violence.

Facebook has always had issues with moderation. Its policies may seem internally consistent, but the way they play out in the messiness of everyday life leaves a lot to be desired. The content it removed may have somehow violated policies or local laws, but posts are apparently viewed in vacuum, removed from political and social context. This isn’t necessarily an oversight by Facebook. It’s merely reflective of the reality the company deals with: more than a billion users scattered across the globe, operating under a patchwork of speech laws that cannot be applied across all posts from all people.

But the end result of this impossible task is Facebook’s inadvertent participation in the spread of anti-Muslim hate that is linked to suspected ethnic cleansing. Unfortunately, the UN’s public criticism of Facebook isn’t going to help. If Facebook sees more regulation or international pressure headed its way, it’s likely to double-down on moderation, resulting in even more suppression of anti-government sentiment. It will get worse for Myanmar Muslims, thanks to Facebook’s inadvertent stranglehold on news distribution.

This isn’t to say no one should be speaking up about Facebook’s contribution to an international problem. It’s just that they shouldn’t expect things to get better just because they’re loudly complaining about it. The problem is the Myanmar government and that’s where the UN should focus its efforts. Facebook’s contribution is a symptom of the underlying problem, not a root cause.

Filed Under: hate speech, intermediary liability, myanmar, un, violence
Companies: facebook