This announcement comes amidst a firestorm of attention focused on the social media giant’s role in allowing vast amounts of personal data to be released, data which was then used to target shady and divisive political ads at Americans. Last week Facebook revealed that tens of thousands more people were affected by that breach than was first reported. As a foundation fundamentally concerned with the health of our democracy, we have been following this story closely.
In fact, Democracy Fund and the Omidyar Network have been raising the alarm about these issues for sometime. Late last year, the organizations published an in-depth paper asking, “Is Social Media a Threat to Democracy?” and identifying six ways in which digital platforms pose direct challenges to our democratic ideals. We have signed on to support this research initiative, but are realistic about the complexities and risks of supporting this effort and are approaching it as one part of a multipronged strategy to create a safer, stronger and more meaningful digital public square.
We are deeply committed to working on meaningful solutions that help rebuild trustworthy spaces for communities to connect, share information and participate in our democracy. We currently fund a range of efforts focused on combating hyper-partisanship, ensuring the integrity of our elections, and fostering a robust fourth estate locally and nationally.
Grantees like Prof. Zeynep Tufekci and ProPublica are doing powerful work on algorithmic accountability. Prof. Young Mie Kim tracked political ads on Facebook in 2016 and Politifact is helping sort truth from fiction on the platform. The German Marshall Fund is tracking Russian misinformation and Free Press is organization diverse communities around the rights to connect and communicate. The Center for Democracy and Technology is helping strengthen election cybersecurity, and spreading best practices for data privacy in voter registration databases and campaign data. Launched in 2017, the Social Science Research Center’s Media & Democracy program encourages academic research, practitioner reflection, and public debate on all aspects of the close relationship between media and democracy, including how changes in the political landscape, such as increasing polarization, have affected the media.
However, in our work with activists, organizations, and scholars in the field we have consistently heard that we can’t address what we don’t know. Through this new research effort Facebook says it will give researchers unpresented access to its data in ways it never has before. The research will be driven by a diverse coalition of scholars. Research projects will have to go through relevant university Institutional Review Board (IRB) reviews, will be rigorously peer reviewed, and may be vetted to ensure Facebook lives up to its legal and ethical commitments to users. Crucially, the research results themselves will not be subject to approval by Facebook
The emphasis of this first announcement is on Facebook’s role in elections, but the committee is also expected to address how Facebook’s systems influence viral deceptions, polarization, and civic engagement. Democracy Fund believes the American people must have effective ways to understand and be a part of the democratic process. As the internet transforms political life, it opens exciting new pathways for public engagement but has also created a fertile ground for abuse, harassment and manipulation that hurt our communities and our society. As this research is planned Democracy Fund will pay special attention to ensuring that the voices and the priorities of those disproportionately harmed by social media are included.
The flood of news about bad actors gaming the system have revealed a troubling disregard for the critical responsibility social media companies have had over our personal privacy and public debate. Facebook, and other platforms, need to acknowledge the oversized role they play in our society and truly prioritize privacy, embrace transparency, and accept accountability. We are realistic about the complexities here, but see this research partnership as a key step towards that goal. Through this program, and in separate endeavors, we are deeply committed to working on meaningful solutions that help rebuild trustworthy spaces for communities to connect, share information and participate in our democracy.
Research Aimed at Identifying Actions and Policies that Affect Elections and Democratic Norms
Washington, D.C. and Redwood City, CA (April 9, 2018) – Earlier today, Facebook announced the launch of a new research initiative that will enable independent researchers to perform an assessment of the role the social platform plays in elections. Democracy Fund and Omidyar Network have joined an effort led by the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation to support this potentially important step toward addressing how Facebook’s algorithms and vast storehouses of data are shaping elections, the social fabric, and democratic life.
The two organizations’ support is a continuation of the collective work Democracy Fund and Omidyar Network have done to address the unintended consequences of technology and its impacts on democracy. Democracy is under attack from many directions, and the influence social media has on elections is a critical front. While the full extent and impact of the role of malicious domestic actors on the 2016 election remains unknown, it has been verified that social media platforms were misused and that networks including but not limited to Facebook – violated the public’s trust. It’s now incumbent on these platforms to regain trust by urgently implementing technology solutions and supporting policy solutions where appropriate.
Key to finding these solutions will be Facebook’s support of independent, peer-reviewed analyses performed by a diverse committee of academic researchers, including voices who have been disproportionately harmed by social media. In particular, the committee must have diversity across ideology, race and ethnicity, geography, gender, expertise, and life experience. Today’s announcement is a first step in that direction. Notably, the research committee will independently solicit and prioritize research. They will have access to secure, privacy-protected data, which will be critically important in understanding the dynamics and effects of social media on the public square and arriving at informed recommendations about potential solutions. Ultimately, the academics will publish their findings without prior review or approval from Facebook.
The committee is expected to address misinformation, disinformation, and propaganda; polarizing content; promoting freedom of expression and association; protecting domestic elections from foreign interference; and civic engagement. It will answer two critical questions: Does Facebook have the right systems in place to fight misinformation and foreign interference? And how can Facebook help make social media a net positive for democracy?
“Each new story of nefarious actors abusing the platforms – often to foster divisiveness and intolerance – proves just how critical it is that social media companies take responsibility for securing our personal privacy and protecting public debate,” said Tom Glaisyer, managing director of the Public Square Program at Democracy Fund. “If the social media platforms are going to regain the public’s trust and live up to the outsized role they play in our democracy, the platforms must truly prioritize privacy, embrace transparency, and accept accountability. To protect and uphold meaningful rights we need richer, better informed research into the digital public square.”
“At Omidyar Network, we believe that technology can be a massive force for good, but that technologists must take broader responsibility for the implications of their products on society,” noted Paula Goldman, vice president and head of Omidyar Network’s Tech and Society Solutions Lab. “It is urgent that we find solutions that are based on sound analysis, which we cannot do without access to data. We’re hopeful this is first in a series of efforts by platforms to open up their data in a responsible way to help find robust solutions to the problems at hand.”
Democracy Fund and Omidyar Network, both part of The Omidyar Group, are deeply committed to determining how to leverage the potential of technology while addressing its unintended consequences. Late last year, the organizations joined forces to ask “Is Social Media a Threat to Democracy?” identifying six ways in which digital platforms pose direct challenges to democratic ideals. To help address these and other issues, Democracy Fund and Omidyar Network are pursuing multi-pronged strategies to help ensure the public square is vibrant, trusted, and informative in the digital age.
Omidyar Network’s Tech and Society Solutions Lab is designed to test, build, and scale solutions that address the unintended consequences of technology – and, more importantly, help maximize the tech industry’s contributions to a healthy society. For example, the Lab has invested in Tristan Harris, a former Design Ethicist at Google, who co-founded the Center for Humane Technology in part to develop new models for how technology could contribute to individual and public health. The Lab is also partnering with tech, media, and civil society leaders to support a grassroots campaign to create a code of ethics for the data science community to adopt principles of responsible data use and sharing.
Democracy Fund believes the American people must have effective ways to understand and be a part of the democratic process. As the internet transforms political life, it opens exciting new pathways for public engagement while challenging models that used to work. Democracy Fund is deeply committed to solutions that combat hyper-partisanship and ensure that elections have integrity. Some examples of this work include Professor Zeynep Tufekci’s research on algorithmic accountability and the “Eye on Elections” project led by Professor Young Mie Kim. Democracy Fund has also supported a number of specific efforts to address misinformation in news including Politifact, Hoaxy Bot-O-Meter, the Social Science Research Council’s Media & Democracy program, the Documenters Project by City Bureau and more.
All of these projects have the shared goal of increasing the accountability and responsibility of the technology industry and social media platforms. Democracy Fund and Omidyar Network are realistic about the complexities and risks of supporting this effort, but believe it has the potential to be a new avenue through which the public, platforms themselves, and policymakers will be able to better understand the implications of social media for the future of democracy.
***
ABOUT DEMOCRACY FUND
Democracy Fund, part of The Omidyar Group, is a bipartisan foundation created by eBay founder and philanthropist Pierre Omidyar to help ensure that our political system can withstand new challenges and deliver on its promise to the American people. Since 2011, Democracy Fund has invested more than $70 million in support of a healthy democracy, including modern elections, effective governance, and a vibrant public square. To learn more, visit www.democracyfund.org or follow @democracyfund.
ABOUT OMIDYAR NETWORK
Omidyar Network, part of The Omidyar Group, is a philanthropic investment firm dedicated to harnessing the power of markets to create opportunity for people to improve their lives. Established in 2004 by eBay founder Pierre Omidyar and his wife Pam, the organization invests in and helps scale innovative organizations to catalyze economic and social change. Omidyar Network has committed more than $1.2 billion to for-profit companies and nonprofit organizations that foster economic advancement and encourage individual participation across multiple initiatives, including Education, Emerging Tech, Financial Inclusion, Governance & Citizen Engagement, and Property Rights. To learn more, visit www.omidyar.com, and follow on Twitter @omidyarnetwork #PositiveReturns
Checks and balances. Separation of powers. Rule of law. Accountability.
These are terms that are thrown around a lot in D.C. But what does upholding these fundamental tenets of our system of government look like in practice? Last year, Democracy Fund embarked on an effort to tackle this difficult question, investing $6 million over the course of two years.
Through our special project on Government Accountability, Transparency, and Oversight we aim to defend and strengthen the democratic norms that underpin our system of government. Our democracy is strongest when each branch of government serves as a check on the other to ensure there is a balance of power that allows no single branch to dominate the others.
Governmental watchdogs and other institutions of civic life play a critical role in monitoring our government and holding it accountable to the Constitution, the law, and the people. They are engaged in education, advocacy, litigation, research, and other actions that reveal abuses and improve Congress’ ability to conduct oversight. Ultimately their work should lead to increased public demand for action, and more effective checks and balances across the three branches of government.
This special project is an expansion of the critical work we are already doing to improve our institutions. The Governance Program at Democracy Fund has worked for years to strengthen Congress’ capacity to conduct constructive oversight of the executive branch—the type of oversight that helps government better serve the American people. But the current political environment poses new threats to the rule of law and to the system of checks and balances. The question is: Can we protect the rule of law through a constructive approach that brings people together to support the foundation of our system of government? In this partisan moment, can we find bipartisan approaches to protecting democratic norms and holding the government accountable to the American people?
We believe the answer to these questions is “yes.”
We must do all we can to ensure that the structural safeguards of checks and balances established by our Constitution—and the mechanisms that influence and support those safeguards—will work as intended. This holds true regardless of the party that controls the White House, or the two chambers of Congress.
With that in mind, Democracy Fund is investing in a few different areas through this special project. We are working to strengthen the capacity of Congress to engage in effective oversight through watchdogs like the Project On Government Oversight (POGO). Executive branch oversight is a core function of Congress, but congressional capacity to conduct effective oversight has suffered from the same institutional weaknesses—hyper-partisanship, lack of capacity—that have imperiled Congress’ ability to legislate effectively. POGO, along with the Levin Center and the Lugar Center, train congressional staff on both sides of the aisle about how to do effective, bipartisan oversight. That could include working with federal whistleblowers, who are a critical source of information about government wrongdoing. Federal employees who witness waste, fraud, abuse, or who are ordered to engage in actions they believe to be unlawful—and refuse to go along—are a key backstop to ensure accountability. They deserve strong legal protections and representation, which is why we have invested in organizations like the Government Accountability Project (GAP).
Other key elements of accountable government are transparency, and strong ethics rules. We are working to enhance the transparency of government actions and decision-making through our investments in groups like Open the Government and the National Security Archive, and to provide independent fact-checking of government statements on complicated issues through groups like the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. We are likewise supporting organizations like Issue One, who identify and enforce ethics violations, conflicts of interest, and other forms of corruption to ensure government decisions are made for the benefit of the American people—not to enrich a few.
The current climate has shown that we cannot take for granted the rule of law. To strengthen our constitutional system of checks and balances, we are supporting organizations who are working to strengthen our democratic system and prepare for and respond to potential crises, such as the R Street Institute and the Protect Democracy Project.
The fundamental goal of our special project is to ensure that checks and balances, separation of powers, rule of law, and accountability aren’t just Washington buzzwords, but rather, that they remain the principles that form the foundation of our democracy. And if nothing else, we should all be able to agree on that.
Democracy Fund is committed to supporting a resilient, diverse, democratic society that respects the inherent dignity and inalienable rights of each individual, and empowers us all to pursue and achieve the common good. We envision a country in which Americans actively participate in our democracy and have the information needed to hold our leaders accountable. And in which Americans are confident that their voices are heard and that democratic institutions are faithfully and effectively serving the nation’s best interests.
Since our creation in 2011, we have pursued this vision by investing in people and organizations across the political spectrum who are working to ensure we have modern elections, effective governance, and a vibrant public square. We remain deeply committed to these long-term efforts as essential parts of a healthy, responsive democracy.
However, like many who care about the health of our political system, we at Democracy Fund have been increasingly alarmed as the divisive tone and tenor of the 2016 election cycle has continued to fester—suffocating civil dialogue, endangering the rights and lives of minority communities, and threatening some of the most fundamental principles and institutions of our democracy. The new President’s track record of questioning and dismissing our essential norms and institutions has put tremendous stress on our political system—especially on our freedoms of the press and the checks and balances that prevent abuses of powers.
These challenges pose a threat to our vision of a resilient, diverse, democracy — and we believe that when forces threaten the health of American democracy, we must stand up.
In response, we have launched four special projects over the last two years — committing $24 million in grantmaking for 2017-2018 — to defend and strengthen democracy. Following Democracy Fund’s established grantmaking criteria, these four new special projects focus on supporting people and institutions under attack, and helping our civic and political leaders to better understand the long-standing trends in public opinion that have produced today’s politics.
The Special Project on Investigative Journalism supports and defends the role of a robust, free press in our public square. Launched last March with an initial set of grants made in partnership with our colleagues at First Look Media, these grantees have produced hard-hitting public interest reporting on issues related to technology, education, the environment, immigration changes, and more. In the face of mounting attacks on the press, they have aggressively stood up against threats to the fourth estate, reporting on the issues that matter deeply to our nation right now. Examples of their fearless journalism include:
ProPublica’s ongoing reporting on dark ads and Facebook targeting (see “Facebook Moves to Prevent Advertisers From Targeting Haters”) revealed that advertisers could use Facebook to reach self-identified anti-Semites as well as enabling discriminatory job ads. The company removed those ads, as well as ads of other categories that could be used to target hate.
Reporting on how our government works is critical and the Center for Public Integrity and the Center for Investigative Reporting are partnering to create a searchable, sortable database of Trump administration financial disclosures, and engaging readers as “citizen sleuths” to help follow the money.
ProPublica has also set up a project, Documenting Hate, to document hate crimes and bias incidents for which there has previously been limited data available to journalists, researchers, and advocates.
The Center for Investigative Reporting’s Heroin(e), which was picked up by Netflix and nominated for an Oscar, documents the effects of the opioid epidemic in West Virginia.
The Special Project on Fostering a Just and Inclusive Society seeks to protect those whose civil rights and safety appear to be endangered in this emerging landscape. It supports work that serves multiple communities vulnerable to threats in our volatile political environment, and — based on public opinion including that of the Democracy Fund Voter Study Group — this project has a particular focus on the risks to Muslim, Arab, and South Asian (MASA) communities. These grants have centered around four main objectives:
Supporting honest and positive communications efforts that support the American Muslim community.
Supporting Muslim, Arab and South Asian Community Organizations
Creating bipartisan community networks that can support MASA communities if threatened.
Challenging curbs on civil rights through litigation, legal services, and legal education
Since we began supporting these fields, our grantees have made significant progress, building relationships across the field and providing legal support. For example:
The Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection (ICAP) filed four amicus briefs, in support of a challenge to DACA’s termination and in support of challenges to anti-sanctuary city policies. Following the events in Charlottesville, ICAP filed a lawsuit to prevent the return of unlawful private paramilitaries.
The Special Project on Government Accountability, Transparency, and Oversight strengthens the checks and balances that help Americans hold their leaders and government accountable. This project bolsters the existing structural safeguards in our system by, for example, rebuilding congressional capacity to conduct oversight, protecting potential whistleblowers, and fighting for more transparency around government actions. Our grantees also prepare for anticipated threats to the rule of law that could put our democracy at risk.
To date, Democracy Fund has provided support to a number of organizations strengthening government accountability, shining a light on government actions, and safeguarding our institutions. Some examples of our partners’ work include:
The Project on Government Oversight (POGO) has pushed to enforce government ethics rules, improve whistleblower protection policies, and strengthen bipartisan congressional oversight efforts.
A FOIA lawsuit filed by Lawfare and Protect Democracy Project helped secure the release of more than 100 FBI emails that contradicted the White House narrative that Director James Comey had lost Bureau support before his firing.
The Democracy Fund Voter Study Group, our fourth special project, is a research collaboration of more than two dozen analysts and scholars from across the political spectrum examining and delivering insights on the evolving views of American voters. As the 2016 presidential campaign unfolded, it became increasingly clear that the underlying values and beliefs driving voter decisions need to be better understood. To that end, Henry Olsen of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, John Sides of The George Washington University, and Joe Goldman of Democracy Fund convened a politically diverse group of conservative, progressive, and independent public opinion experts to study the electorate together. The group seeks not to achieve consensus, but to engage in discussion about how the views of the electorate are evolving and what the implications of those changes may be.
The Voter Study Group’s unique longitudinal surveys are translating into a richer understanding of the public’s views and concerns. For example:
Emily Ekins’ Five Types of Trump Voters illustrates the breadth of the President’s supporters’ views on a variety of issues including immigration, race, American identity, moral traditionalism, trade, and economics.
Robert Griffin’s Party Hoppers shows how a majority of the key Obama-to-Trump voters now identify as Republicans.
Most recently, Follow the Leader, by Lee Drutman, Larry Diamond, and Joe Goldman, reveals that while a majority of Americans still support democracy, more than one in four express some support for authoritarian politics.
In the coming weeks, Democracy Fund will publish blogs describing the progress of these projects. We are inspired and encouraged by the hard work and commitment of the bipartisan coalition of leaders and allies with whom we stand to ensure our political system is healthy and responsive to the needs of the American people. We look forward to continuing to work with these voices and leaders in defense of our common democratic ideals.
Laura Maristany co-wrote this blog post with Anne Gleich.
As we welcome a new year — and inch closer to midterm elections — the makeup of our current Congress continues to gain attention. With growing frustration around their perceived dysfunction, the need for leadership development and, particularly, candidate development programs across the nation have become a topic of national concern. In response to the spotlight, many groups are using the opportunity to launch new efforts and create pipelines of new candidates for Congress with hopes that helping the institution look more like the rest of America will increase its ability to function. In 2017, we conducted an environmental scan of leadership development programs geared towards elected officials and identified over 700 groups currently committed to this work. While the scan focused on identifying an average number of groups in this space – and not necessarily their models or effectiveness – it made it clear that we are all looking for the secret sauce to ensure more representative, more functional institutions. The question is, does broader representation on its own lead to a more functional Congress?
There is no doubt that we should continue to identify and support groups committed to developing the next generation of leaders, as well as those working with current elected leaders to promote their continued growth. These groups should continue to develop leadership pipelines to Congress and acknowledge that it is not simply about changing the landscape. We also need to ensure this pipeline is filled with constructive voices. We often hear that Congress would be more functional if it looked more like the America it represents. This could help, but we also need to develop leaders who can promote more constructive politics.
Democracy Fund has embraced this challenge as a foundation. To understand why, let’s take a step back and talk about bipartisanship, which is often viewed as a key to making a dysfunctional government functional. The problem is, forcing people — and particularly elected officials — to choose bipartisanship won’t address the underlying issues. People are partisan — generally we believe our own policy approach is the best approach. Our work in systems mapping tells us that even when we agree, there might be other forces — like towing the party line — that get in the way of compromise, and ultimately lead to gridlock and hyper partisanship. In this context, it is not enough that we commit to creating pipelines of diverse voices: we also need to shift political incentives. In our opinion, the missing ingredient to the “secret sauce” is whether the leaders in those pipelines, and our elected officials, care enough about the issues to come to the table to discuss, debate, and ultimately pass legislation with civility and respect. In other words, how willing are they to stand up for their constituents?
Democracy Fund believes that when our leaders care enough — about their community, constituents, or policy agenda — they will be willing to come to the table, have tough conversations, and accomplish the goal of legislating. We believe this work is crucial to the continued health of our democracy. Therefore, Democracy Fund is proud to support organizations and programs that are working to build diverse pipelines and bridges for constructive conversations, including:
Aspen Socrates Program American Values Seminars (AVS) will leverage their network and convene local leaders from a wide range of backgrounds and sectors under the tested Socrates seminar model with the aim of creating connections, promoting civil discourse and increasing dialogue in local communities. AVS will serve as a forum for the open exchange of ideas and the cultivation of leadership steeped in our shared American values. This duty, of citizen engagement and civic responsibility, remain as timely and as timeless, as ever.
The Cato Institute Project on the Prospects for Liberal Democracy which seeks to defend and improve liberal institutions as a way of avoiding the threat of populism. The project will make a concerted effort to vindicate liberal institutions and bolster them where they are weak by identifying reforms that can make them more responsive — not to transient public passions, but to what Madison termed “the cool and deliberate sense of the community.”
The Millennial Action Project works to re-establish cooperation over party lines in Congress by working with millennial members of state and national legislatures to encourage a new generation of lawmakers in our country. It also works to increase the thoughtful engagement of millennial constituents by elected officials.
The National Institute for Civil Discourse at the University of Arizona encourages political and civic leaders to embrace vigorous debate in a way that allows diverse perspectives to be shared, complex issues to be discussed thoughtfully, and challenging topics to be explored. NICD travels the country to provide trainings to elected officials on how to act civilly to one another.
Cultivate the Karass provides tools for emerging leaders to overcome polarization, establish common ground, and build trust with one another. With the goal of promoting a healthy democracy through cultivating civil discourse and bipartisanship, Cultivate the Karass brings together leaders from different disciplines and political backgrounds to work together and acts as another model to break down barriers to civil conversations.
We hope you will join us in tackling this challenge.
Democracy Fund Senior Advisor Tammy Patrick issued the following statement in response to the dissolution of the Pence-Kobach Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity:
“From nearly the moment it was created, the Commission was the source of bipartisan concern. Its unprecedented demands for voter information were rebuffed by Secretaries of State and other election administration officials from both parties in dozens of states across the country. These officials deserve credit for standing up for the privacy of voters in their states in the face of the Commission’s dramatic overreach and minimal transparency.
“Our democracy depends on citizens voting and on every ballot being counted accurately. Voters should know that states are working hard to ensure we have a secure election system. But we must remain vigilant in keeping it that way.
“We hope that any future presidential commissions in this area return to the successful, bipartisan model employed by the Presidential Commission on Election Administration and similar past efforts. These efforts were guided by research and the facts, not personal agendas.”
###
Democracy Fund Senior Adviser Tammy Patrick is available for further comment on the dissolution of the Pence-Kobach Commission. Please contact Josh Dorner at jdorner@skdknick.com to schedule.
Tammy Patrick co-authored this piece with Stacey Scholl.
At Democracy Fund, we believe that Americans deserve modern, voter-centric elections as a part of a responsive political system. As a grantmaker, this means investing in other organizations, projects, and platforms that support the spread of good information and foster dialogue. At times, it can also mean developing and creating our own internal efforts. In that spirit, we are excited to welcome electionline.org as a Democracy Fund project and to continue working with Mindy Moretti as the site editor.
Electionline.org is the nation’s only nonpartisan, non-advocacy clearinghouse for election administration news and information. Over the last 17 years, former editor Doug Chapin and current editor Mindy Moretti have provided a unique place where election administrators can find news relevant to their work — apart from political horse races and partisan campaign rhetoric. Daily and weekly content illustrates the routine business of our American elections and features stories ranging from serious issues with ballots to lighthearted moments with poll workers.
Democracy Fund has been a long-time supporter of electionline.org, providing significant financial support since 2014. As the partnership grew, we had the space to consider what the future could look like for both organizations — and an agreement was made to bring the project within Democracy Fund. Over the next year, Democracy Fund will work with Mindy to manage and grow the site. It will continue to operate through a strictly nonpartisan lens and with a commitment to transparency about the role our organization plays. Our goal is to ensure the site remains a trusted source of the latest news, tools, and best practices for accessible and secure elections.
Over the years, several organizations who care about the quality of American elections have contributed to building and sustaining the electionline.org website, including The Pew Charitable Trusts and the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation. We value their contributions and they cannot go unthanked for their vision for the site. We also remain so grateful to Doug and Mindy for their pioneering work. Doug explained that the site grew bigger and better than he ever expected. He’d originally hoped that the site would prompt national and local media outlets to take on election administration as a routine beat after a few years, making the site unnecessary over time. That hasn’t happened, but electionline.org has outlasted his initial prediction as a result, becoming a truly one-of-a-kind place for the elections community.
Part of Mindy’s passion for the site is that “there is a story behind every vote cast. There is a story behind every new innovation or piece of equipment purchased.” And while electionline.org might have started as Doug’s baby, it has been Mindy’s unruly teenager and she’s glad that the site now has a home and “co-parent” with Democracy Fund.
While we’re working on what the future holds, not much is going to change immediately. Regular electionline.org readers will see Democracy Fund’s commitment to disclose when weekly articles cover our grantees or other work in the field. As always, the site will have a curation of daily news and a weekly feature about the election world. And Mindy will work with Democracy Fund’s Elections team to grow the network of readers and enhance the types of information available on the site.
For those new to electionline.org, we hope you will check out these posts and research:
As a systems change organization, Democracy Fund is committed to learning, iteration, and partnering in ways that strengthen both our work and the field at large. We understand that addressing challenges in our elections system will take patience, persistence, and a deep partnership with administrators, officials, and advocates across the United States. For this reason, we anticipate that changes and updates to electionline.org will be a collaborative process. We plan to relaunch a new design for electionline.org after evaluating how it can be even more useful to the election administration community. Please email us at elections@democracyfund.org with your thoughts and feedback.
Today The Omidyar Group released a paper co-authored by me and two colleagues at Omidyar Network on the role of social media platforms on democracy and the public square. This paper – called “Is Social Media a Threat to Democracy?” – comes at a moment when there is new scrutiny on the role Facebook, Google, and Twitter played in spreading misinformation and divisive propaganda during the 2016 election. Those debates loom large, however, our analysis goes well beyond any one election to try and understand how social platforms are disrupting core elements of a democratic society.
In June 2017 Facebook raised the question “Is social media good for democracy?” Like them, we have been wrestling with these questions for some time, and while we do not take for granted how these networks provide value to civic life, we are also deeply troubled by the dangers they pose. Their algorithms and their vast storehouses of data gives them fundamentally new capacities abilities to shape discourse, media, and civic and democratic life in American.
As my co-authors – Stacy Donohue and Anamitra Deb – and I reviewed the research of leading voices on this set of issues, we identified six key ways social media is threatening democracy:
Exacerbating the polarization of civil society via echo chambers and filter bubbles
Rapidly spreading mis- and dis-information and amplifying the populist and illiberal wave across the globe
Creating competing realities driven by their algorithms’ intertwining of popularity and legitimacy
Being vulnerable to political capture and voter manipulation through enabling malevolent actors to spread dis-information and covertly influence public opinion
Capturing unprecedented amounts of data that can be used to manipulate user behavior
Facilitating hate speech, public humiliation, and the targeted marginalization of disadvantaged or minority voices
There are no easy answers to the challenges represented above, and any group of potential solutions must account for the diverse interests of multiple stakeholders if we are going to have the public square we deserve. As our founder, ebay creator Pierre Omidyar, wrote today in The Washington Post, “Just as new regulations and policies had to be established for the evolving online commerce sector, social media companies must now help navigate the serious threats posed by their platforms and help lead the development and enforcement of clear industry safeguards. Change won’t happen overnight, and these issues will require ongoing examination, collaboration and vigilance to effectively turn the tide.”
For our part, at Democracy Fund, the potential effects of social media on democracy are closely tied to many lines of our work. This includes longstanding investments on issues ranging from combating hyperpartisanship with constructive dialogue to developing digital election administration tools, and from understanding the impact of fact checking to supporting communities often targeted online. A few examples of this work include:
Politifact, one of the nation’s leading fact checking organizations, has partnered with Facebook to combat the spread of misinformation on the platform.
The Center for Media Engagement, formerly the Engaging News Project, works with newsrooms, social platforms and the public to develop and test ways to make trusted online information more engaging and impactful.
The Coral Project builds open-source tools focused on helping newsrooms build safe, secure and vibrant online communities.
In addition, we supported the Knight Prototype Fund on misinformation earlier this year, which focused on many of these issues. The full list of 20 projects can be found here, but the four projects we funded are:
Viz Lab — Developing a dashboard to track how misinformation spreads through images and memes to aid journalists and researchers in understanding the origins of the image, its promoters, and where it might have been altered and then redistributed across social media.
Hoaxy Bot-o-Meter is a tool created by computer scientists at the Center for Complex Networks to uncover attempts to use Internet bots to boost the spread of misinformation and shape public opinion. The tool aims to reveal how this information is generated and broadcasted, how it becomes viral, its overall reach, and how it competes with accurate information for placement on user feeds.
The Documenters Project by City Bureau creates a network of citizen “documenters” who receive training in the use of journalistic ethics and tools, attend public civic events, and produce trustworthy reports on social media platforms.
The American Library Association is collaborating with the Center for News Literacy to develop an adult media literacy program in five public libraries, focused on how to be a savvy digital citizen in a platform world.
We are going to continue to ask hard questions and support people and organizations who are working to create a robust public square that serves our democracy. We look forward to continuing this work alongside these and other partners. Please email the authors at inquiries@omidyargroup.com if you’d like to discuss how we might work together.
Democracy Fund is proud to announce a new grant to the Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT). With demonstrated expertise in data privacy and a deep understanding of the unique challenges of election administration, CDT is positioned to be critical bridge builder to help experts and policymakers better communicate, collaborate, and respond to threats to our election system.
Before I describe CDT’s voter registration and campaign data cybersecurity project, I’d like to offer a small window into our thinking about the importance of this line of work and how it supports Democracy Fund’s strategic priorities.
Voter Registration & the Increasing Challenges for Data Security
Increasing access to the Internet, the growing civic tech community, and improved technologies have paved a path for states to modernize voter registration systems. These modernization policies are appealing to many legislators and election experts who view them as a step toward cost-efficiency and an improved voter experience. For the last 15 years, states have been modernizing voter registration systems by offering online voter registration to citizens, facilitating collaboration between election officials and government offices covered under the National Voter Registration Act, and joining state-driven efforts like ERIC to keep voter rolls clean and identify eligible voters. As our systems map shows, these changes to registration systems help make voter lists more accurate, which leads to better election planning, and fewer problems experienced or perceived by voters on Election Day.
From an administrative perspective, modernizing voter registration improves the voter experience by allowing the voter to type in his or her own information into a database and streamlines the transfer of registration data between government agencies and elections departments. Registration data also helps political campaigns better understand the electorate and strategically reach out to potential voters. As these modernization policies are implemented in the states, election officials and other managers of election data have the enormous responsibility of maintaining these digital systems and protecting them from cyber-attacks—all while operating on limited budgets, preserving voting rights, and protecting individual privacy.
Election Integrity, Trust, and the 2016 Election
The tone and tenor of the 2016 presidential campaign raised our concerns about public trust in elections. While it is not unusual for the public to be concerned about possible voting fraud, the allegations from both presidential candidates that the election system was “rigged” or “hacked” in favor of a particular candidate or outcome felt atypical and worrisome. Irresponsible campaign rhetoric may have created (or reinforced pre-existing) misconceptions about the way elections are run. After the election was over and as fears about foreign interference in our elections were mounting, matters were further complicated by the NSA’s apparent documented evidence that the Russian government attempted to infiltrate voter registration systems in several states.
Calling into question the legitimacy of the election outcome without evidence of actual wrongdoing is harmful to the public’s faith in government and undermines our democracy. To reiterate: public concerns about election integrity are not unique to this past election cycle. However, public misconceptions about the way elections work and the real threats of foreign interference make the cybersecurity risks faced by campaigns and election officials even more significant. We must work toward sustainable solutions that give election officials and others the tools needed to protect the voices and votes of the American electorate.
Though difficult, it is not impossible to allay the public’s concerns. The increasing use of technology in election management makes the system more complex than ever before. It requires listeners to understand very technical administrative processes and makes it difficult for the news media to report about. However, election officials play a key role in shaping the public’s understanding of election process, and voters are very likely to listen. For these reasons, it is vital for stakeholders to balance the need to be responsive to public concerns with the needs of under-resourced election departments that could benefit from doable, sustainable best practice recommendations from the cybersecurity and civic tech communities.
Why We Invested
At Democracy Fund, we believe that every eligible American should have an equal opportunity to vote in elections that are free, fair, accessible, and secure. A healthy democracy requires election administrators and other government officials provide voters with confidence in the integrity of election outcomes and assurance that they have a voice in our democracy. Data-driven policies and new technologies can help reduce barriers to voting and improve the efficiency and security of our election system.
Based on analysis captured in our Election Administration & Voting System map, Democracy Fund invests in organizations and projects that are focused on expanding modern and secure voter registration systems; supporting voter-centric practices and tools in election administration to improve the voter experience; and fostering the public’s trust in elections by supporting a system that’s worthy of their trust.
We invested in the Center for Democracy and Technology because technology experts and election professionals need a reliable and trusted cybersecurity resource. With our support, CDT will:
Conduct a 2-year research effort to identify opportunities and challenges with cybersecurity in state election offices and national political campaigns;
Generate a set of best practices for election officials and the public; and
Distribute “campaign data hygiene” recommendations for all political parties.
Convene experts and stakeholders to learn from each other and co-create solutions to election security challenges.
You can learn more about these efforts in CDT’s press release announcing our grant and the project.
Political professionals should be able to keep discussions about campaign strategy internal; election officials should have the tools necessary to combat any type of outside interference; and voters should feel confident that our elections result in legitimate outcomes. We believe Joe Lorenzo Hall and the CDT team will fortify the field with research that deepens our shared understanding, create opportunities for learning and collaboration, and equip election officials and the managers of voter data with the solutions they need to protect voters and encourage participation in future elections.
This blog was co-authored by Francesca Mazzola, Associate Director at FSG.
Three Important Lessons About Trust
At Democracy Fund, we have been exploring questions of trust. Trust in institutions is at an all-time low. In 2016, for example, only 32% of Americans said they had a “Great Deal” or “Fair Amount of Trust” in mass media, the lowest level of trust in Gallup polling history.
Meanwhile, research suggests (1) that higher levels of trust lead to: a) greater confidence in trusted individuals or institutions and b) a willingness to act based on that confidence. In the context of our national relationship to the news media, for instance, this implies that a significant majority of Americans may not be willing to act civically or otherwise based on the information provided by mass media outlets.
Given that democracies function best when individuals participate in the civic process (e.g. voting, running for office, volunteering), it is clear that the current low level of trust in public institutions (including, but not only, the media) is a problem in need of attention. A healthy democracy requires institutions that are both trustworthy and trusted.
As we’ve been investigating the notion of trust, three important lessons have become apparent to us:
1. Trust has both cognitive and affective dimensions
Think about someone you trust. Now think about the reasons why you trust that person. More than likely, they have a good “track record” of having been there for you when you needed them. In addition, you probably have an emotional bond with them that allows you to be vulnerable. This exemplifies the two dimensions of trust – cognitive and affective. (2)
Cognitive trust has been described as “trusting from the head.” It includes factors such as dependability, predictability, and reputation. Affective trust, on the other hand, involves having mutual care and concern or emotional bonds. This has been described as “trusting from the heart.” Most trusting relationships have both cognitive and affective aspects that often reinforce one another.
2. Trust and trustworthiness are not the same
One way to understand trust is that it is a firm belief (cognitive and affective) in the goodness of something (we use the word “goodness” deliberately here, as dictionary definitions of trust tend to use descriptors of trustworthiness instead). We are often willing to trust people, companies, and institutions because we believe they are good, at least in the context in which we trust them.
Trustworthiness is a related, but different notion. Trustworthiness is defined as the perceived likelihood that a particular trustee will uphold one’s trust. (3) Like trust, it also has cognitive dimensions (such as competence, credibility, and reliability) and affective dimensions (such as ethics and positive intentions) that signal that the trustee “has what it takes” to meet the trustor’s needs and uphold their trust.
Imagine your interaction with your bank. Though you don’t necessarily need to trust the bank (i.e. believe in its “goodness”) as you would trust a spouse or a close friend, you must believe that the bank is trustworthy – i.e., it completes your transaction as intended, obeys laws, and follows a code of ethics. But you have to have trust in the overall monetary and financial system to even feel safe opening a bank account – something that was adversely affected after the financial crisis.
3. Trustworthiness and trust have a counter-intuitive relationship
A rational point of view of the relationship between trustworthiness and trust would suggest that when you first encounter a system, you make an assessment of its trustworthiness (e.g., competence, predictability), and then you calibrate your level of trust accordingly.
But, alas, human beings are anything but rational. The evidence around human cognition and reasoning increasingly points to a counter-intuitive relationship: often, we enter into a new relationship (with a person or a system) with a level of trust that is influenced by the “bubbles” (i.e. communities and networks populated by like-minded folks) that we inhabit.
In the light of these dynamics, improving the trustworthiness of a system is often necessary and vital, but perhaps insufficient as a way to build public trust. Of course, we want to prevent a crisis of trustworthiness from eroding trust. For instance, public trust in Japan’s institutions suffered a severe blow as a result of the government’s bungled response to the Fukushima disaster in 2011. But, ensuring trustworthiness on its own may not be enough to overcome the contextual forces that undermine trust in the first place.
Furthermore, some efforts to improve trustworthiness, such as technical improvements to a system, are shown to decrease trust in the short-term, by introducing unpredictability as people have to navigate an unfamiliar tool or process. As we will discuss in the next part of this post, these complicated dynamics will have to be kept in mind as one tries to navigate the work of re-building trust in democratic institutions.
How We Are Strengthening Trust and Trustworthiness
For the Democracy Fund, and anyone else working on improving American democracy, it is hard to ignore the fact that trust in institutions is remarkably low by historical standards. This is especially true for Democracy Fund’s three main areas of focus – media and journalism, Congress, and elections. There are several factors that have led to this. For instance, our Congress and Public Trust systems map explores how the actions of members of Congress and their staff, the media, and the public interact to create the current state of Congress.
Previously, we talked a bit about why this decline in trust matters. The question now becomes, “can anything be done about it?” And in our efforts to do something about it, do we focus on trust, trustworthiness, or both?
The “trust matrix”
As we discussed previously, level of trust and assessment of trustworthiness are related, but different notions, and each has cognitive and affective dimensions. These concepts are organized below into what we’ve come to call the trust matrix. The matrix also provides labels (e.g., “personal affinity”) to help readers easily navigate the differences among categories of concepts.
Implications for Democracy Fund
We recognize that in order to restore trust in democratic institutions, we need to work on multiple fronts. This by no means an easy task. Philanthropy, in general, tends to focus on solutions that address trustworthiness. For instance, an effort to improve education may focus primarily on educator competencies, or work to create a set of proficiency standards.
This may be because it can be a lot harder to affect people’s personal affinity for individuals or institutions, or public perceptions of individuals’ or institutions’ characters. While there may be few “tried and true” methods to address these factors, they are nonetheless important pieces in affecting individuals’ trust in systems and institutions. At the same time, it’s important to acknowledge that there are potential ethical implications with influencing people’s belief systems, and hence a responsible framework needs to be considered.
As we grapple with the myriad of intricacies here, we are beginning to come to terms with what types of approaches may fit under each quadrant of trust matrix. Below are some early hypotheses:
Trustworthiness: We must increase the trustworthiness of institutions by equipping key stakeholders with better tools and practices (cognitive), and the promulgation and adoption of better standards and ethics (affective). For our elections work, this might mean identifying standards and promoting security in election systems, and providing election officials with the resources they need to maintain system integrity. Any failure within our election system could seriously undermine public trust. For our media and journalism work, this may mean re-thinking how we make the case for fundamental facts and combat misinformation, as well as working on practices around transparency and corrections.
Level of Trust: We also need to tackle the trust deficit through strategies that speak directly to the public through engagement tools (cognitive) and the use of bonding and identification (affective). For our elections work, this may mean empowering the right messengers with tools and tactics to improve voter confidence. For our media and journalism work, this may mean having specific strategies that emphasize improving trust among historically marginalized communities, and other groups with special attention to increasing the diversity and inclusion of sources, stories and staffing.
At a time when our democratic norms are often undermined, we hope that our work to strengthen trust in trustworthy institutions will help build public confidence and participation in our democracy. As we continue to develop and hone our approach, we look forward to learning and sharing more with the field.
Thanks to Marcie Parkhurst, Nikhil Bumb, and Jaclyn Marcatili from FSG for supporting the research that informed this piece.
Works Cited:
1. Kelton, Kari. “Trust in Digital Information.” Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology (2008): 363-74.
2. McAllister, D. J. “Affect- And Cognition-Based Trust As Foundations For Interpersonal Cooperation In Organizations.” Academy of Management Journal 38.1 (1995): 24-59
3. Colquitt, Jason A. “Justice, Trust, and Trustworthiness: A Longitudinal Analysis Integrating Three Theoretical Perspectives.” The Academy of Management Journal, vol. 54, no. 6, 1 Dec. 2011, pp. 1183–1206. JSTOR.
Cookies Notice
This website uses cookies to provide you with an improved and personalized experience. By using this site you agree to our use of cookies. Please read our cookies policy for more information on the cookies we use and how to delete or block them.
