[liberationtech] ‘Kind’ technology?

[Yosem Companys]

From: Harnidh Kaur 

I don’t think most of you know this, but I work in the development space
and we’re always trying to find cool ways to make tech make the world
better. I’ve been trying to read up more about the same. So, here.

Is ‘kind technology’ a thing? Where people are trying to change gears of
existing/incumbent technology to specifically serve vulnerable populations?

Any existing ideas/something you’re working on/things you think SHOULD find
a kind tech iteration. Gimme!
--
Regards

Harnidh Kaur
Lady Shri Ram College for Women '15
St. Xavier's College, Mumbai '17
Foreverawkwardandlearning.wordpress.com

+91-7718951383
-- 
Liberationtech is public & archives are searchable on Google. Violations of 
list guidelines will get you moderated: 
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech. Unsubscribe, 
change to digest, or change password by emailing the moderator at 
zakwh...@stanford.edu.

Re: [liberationtech] ‘Kind’ technology?

[Peter Lindener]

Dear
Harnidh, Yosem-

In the close of last chapter of Algorithms to Live By
 about the challenges and potentials of
Game Theoretic Mechanism Design by way of the Revolution Principal

 ,
Brian Christian  and Tom Griffiths
 mention the concept of
Computational
Kindness .
  The point I make here it that it is possible to construct an N-Way,
spoiler effect free vote tallying systems that is always "computationally
kind" to all voters of the electorate.   That is, a voting system where
every voter's best strategy is always to express the truth about there
preference rankings as placed upon a cardinal personal utility scale..
furthermore such an automated strategic voting system can be made to
operate entirely within a information leveled context, where any issues of
strategic information asymmetry would be entirely mitigated.

While for some combinations of ballot input (when there is not a clear
cut pairwise head to head Condorcet win against all other contenders), as a
good understanding of Gibbard–Satterthwaite theorem
,
suggests, some amount of departure from a fully deterministic outcome is
required to defeat any potential of strategic vote gaming, the introduction
of this fully hidden randomization variable can be configured in such a
fashion as to minimize the field of ultimate contention as well as the
degree of randomization ultimately required..

That is: if we define the election outcome to be at the sole
equilibrium of automated strategic probabilistic (fuzzy) approval voting
game, that minimizes this width of a linear "viability margin" we can solve
for the this unique probability that minimizes the amount of randomization
required to defeat any possibility of strategic vote gaming... and thus
provide the social choice solution that is as close as is theoretically
possible to a deterministic outcome.

Furthermore if one then combines the above concept with a voter
specified strategic moderation parameter as suggest in this paper
, a very attractive
voting system can be constructed.

Hope this helps..
   all the best
   -Peter



On Sun, Feb 4, 2018 at 6:09 AM, Yosem Companys  wrote:

> From: Harnidh Kaur 
>
> I don’t think most of you know this, but I work in the development space
> and we’re always trying to find cool ways to make tech make the world
> better. I’ve been trying to read up more about the same. So, here.
>
> Is ‘kind technology’ a thing? Where people are trying to change gears of
> existing/incumbent technology to specifically serve vulnerable populations?
>
> Any existing ideas/something you’re working on/things you think SHOULD find
> a kind tech iteration. Gimme!
> --
> Regards
>
> Harnidh Kaur
> Lady Shri Ram College for Women '15
> St. Xavier's College, Mumbai '17
> Foreverawkwardandlearning.wordpress.com
> 
> +91-7718951383
>
>
> --
> Liberationtech is public & archives are searchable on Google. Violations
> of list guidelines will get you moderated: https://mailman.stanford.edu/
> mailman/listinfo/liberationtech. Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change
> password by emailing the moderator at zakwh...@stanford.edu.
>
-- 
Liberationtech is public & archives are searchable on Google. Violations of 
list guidelines will get you moderated: 
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech. Unsubscribe, 
change to digest, or change password by emailing the moderator at 
zakwh...@stanford.edu.

Re: [liberationtech] ‘Kind’ technology?

[Charles M. Ess]

I'm not sure if it's quite in the direction you have in mind, but in 
Scandinavia and now a bit more broadly in Europe at least, there is a 
growing tradition of "slow technology" - aimed at helping us slow down 
rather than always be in the service (enslavement) of greater 
efficiencies, etc.
This tradition begins with the work of J. Redström (2002) and is 
elaborated on in  Patrignani and Whitehouse:
… offers people more time for reflection and for the processes needed to 
design and use ICT that takes into account human well-being (good ICT), 
the whole life cycle of the materials, energy, and products used to 
create, manufacture, power, and dispose of ICT (clean ICT), and the 
working conditions of workers throughout the entire ICT supply chain 
(fair ICT). (Patrignani, Norberto, and Diane Whitehouse. 2018. Slow Tech 
and ICT: A Responsible, Sustainable and Ethical Approach. London: 
Palgrave Macmillan.2018, 1)


"Well-being" resonates with virtue ethics' emphases on flourishing and 
good lives, both individually and collective - one of the premier 
examples of taking virtue ethics as a foundation for design approaches is:
Spiekermann, Sarah. 2016. Ethical IT Innovation: A Value-Based System 
Design Approach. New York: Taylor & Francis.


Most hearteningly (from my perspective) these approaches are 
increasingly being taken on board in various engineering projects and 
communities - including the IEEE "Global Initiative for Ethical 
Considerations in the Design of Autonomous Systems"

().

It seems to me that the collective norms and aims in play here would at 
least resonate with "kind technology"?  In some ways, that is, even in 
the privileged worlds I experience and work in, the enveloping and 
not-always beneficent character of ICT/ networked technologies make all 
of us vulnerable populations - though I am acutely aware that these are 
enormous differences in terms of context, culture, economic resources, 
etc. as well.


In all events, hope this might be helpful and of interest in some way. 
And best of luck!


- charles ess

On 04/02/18 15:09, Yosem Companys wrote:

From: *Harnidh Kaur* mailto:kharn...@gmail.com>>

I don’t think most of you know this, but I work in the development space
and we’re always trying to find cool ways to make tech make the world
better. I’ve been trying to read up more about the same. So, here.

Is ‘kind technology’ a thing? Where people are trying to change gears of
existing/incumbent technology to specifically serve vulnerable populations?

Any existing ideas/something you’re working on/things you think SHOULD find
a kind tech iteration. Gimme!
--
Regards

Harnidh Kaur
Lady Shri Ram College for Women '15
St. Xavier's College, Mumbai '17
Foreverawkwardandlearning.wordpress.com 

>

+91-7718951383 





--
Professor in Media Studies
Department of Media and Communication
University of Oslo


Postboks 1093
Blindern 0317
Oslo, Norway
c.m@media.uio.no
--
Liberationtech is public & archives are searchable on Google. Violations of 
list guidelines will get you moderated: 
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech. Unsubscribe, change 
to digest, or change password by emailing the moderator at zakwh...@stanford.edu.

Re: [liberationtech] ‘Kind’ technology?

[Andrés Leopoldo Pacheco Sanfuentes]

Great insights, Charles!

The Association for Computing Machinery is in what look like the final stages 
of publishing or revising its Code of Ethics, and it has some good teeth on it.

Also on an interestingly related topic, I came across this stream: minding 
energy efficiency of algorithms and their avatars in computer code.
https://vimeo.com/241030225

Regards / Saludos / Grato

Andrés Leopoldo Pacheco Sanfuentes

> On Feb 4, 2018, at 3:58 PM, Charles M. Ess  wrote:
> 
> I'm not sure if it's quite in the direction you have in mind, but in 
> Scandinavia and now a bit more broadly in Europe at least, there is a growing 
> tradition of "slow technology" - aimed at helping us slow down rather than 
> always be in the service (enslavement) of greater efficiencies, etc.
> This tradition begins with the work of J. Redström (2002) and is elaborated 
> on in  Patrignani and Whitehouse:
> … offers people more time for reflection and for the processes needed to 
> design and use ICT that takes into account human well-being (good ICT), the 
> whole life cycle of the materials, energy, and products used to create, 
> manufacture, power, and dispose of ICT (clean ICT), and the working 
> conditions of workers throughout the entire ICT supply chain (fair ICT). 
> (Patrignani, Norberto, and Diane Whitehouse. 2018. Slow Tech and ICT: A 
> Responsible, Sustainable and Ethical Approach. London: Palgrave 
> Macmillan.2018, 1)
> 
> "Well-being" resonates with virtue ethics' emphases on flourishing and good 
> lives, both individually and collective - one of the premier examples of 
> taking virtue ethics as a foundation for design approaches is:
> Spiekermann, Sarah. 2016. Ethical IT Innovation: A Value-Based System Design 
> Approach. New York: Taylor & Francis.
> 
> Most hearteningly (from my perspective) these approaches are increasingly 
> being taken on board in various engineering projects and communities - 
> including the IEEE "Global Initiative for Ethical Considerations in the 
> Design of Autonomous Systems"
> ().
> 
> It seems to me that the collective norms and aims in play here would at least 
> resonate with "kind technology"?  In some ways, that is, even in the 
> privileged worlds I experience and work in, the enveloping and not-always 
> beneficent character of ICT/ networked technologies make all of us vulnerable 
> populations - though I am acutely aware that these are enormous differences 
> in terms of context, culture, economic resources, etc. as well.
> 
> In all events, hope this might be helpful and of interest in some way. And 
> best of luck!
> 
> - charles ess
> 
>> On 04/02/18 15:09, Yosem Companys wrote:
>> From: *Harnidh Kaur* mailto:kharn...@gmail.com>>
>> I don’t think most of you know this, but I work in the development space
>> and we’re always trying to find cool ways to make tech make the world
>> better. I’ve been trying to read up more about the same. So, here.
>> Is ‘kind technology’ a thing? Where people are trying to change gears of
>> existing/incumbent technology to specifically serve vulnerable populations?
>> Any existing ideas/something you’re working on/things you think SHOULD find
>> a kind tech iteration. Gimme!
>> --
>> Regards
>> Harnidh Kaur
>> Lady Shri Ram College for Women '15
>> St. Xavier's College, Mumbai '17
>> Foreverawkwardandlearning.wordpress.com 
>> 
>> > >
>> +91-7718951383 
> 
> -- 
> Professor in Media Studies
> Department of Media and Communication
> University of Oslo
> 
> 
> Postboks 1093
> Blindern 0317
> Oslo, Norway
> c.m@media.uio.no
> -- 
> Liberationtech is public & archives are searchable on Google. Violations of 
> list guidelines will get you moderated: 
> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech. Unsubscribe, 
> change to digest, or change password by emailing the moderator at 
> zakwh...@stanford.edu.
-- 
Liberationtech is public & archives are searchable on Google. Violations of 
list guidelines will get you moderated: 
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech. Unsubscribe, 
change to digest, or change password by emailing the moderator at 
zakwh...@stanford.edu.

Re: [liberationtech] ‘Kind’ technology?

[carlo von lynX]

On Sun, Feb 04, 2018 at 06:09:38AM -0800, Yosem Companys wrote:
> From: Harnidh Kaur 
> 
> Is ‘kind technology’ a thing? Where people are trying to change gears of
> existing/incumbent technology to specifically serve vulnerable populations?

Your best chance I would guess is if for some reason you
manage to find a niche that nobody else is into. Best if
your project is non-commercial, but even if it is for
profit it may be able to provide ‘kind technology’ as
long as there is no pressure in the niche. That's how I
ran my company until Facebook decided to enter my niche.

As soon as other players enter your field, you'll be in
trouble. If you're a free software player, you have to
compete in the attention economy against better equipped
contendants. If you're commercial, you will have to take
steps to protect your assets, and the passage from being
kind to causing more harm than good can be as small as
putting Google advertizing, analytics or even just fonts
on your website.


-- 
  E-mail is public! Talk to me in private using encryption:
 http://loupsycedyglgamf.onion/LynX/
  irc://loupsycedyglgamf.onion:67/lynX
 https://psyced.org:34443/LynX/
-- 
Liberationtech is public & archives are searchable on Google. Violations of 
list guidelines will get you moderated: 
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech. Unsubscribe, 
change to digest, or change password by emailing the moderator at 
zakwh...@stanford.edu.

Re: [liberationtech] ‘Kind’ technology?

[Jayne Cravens]

> From: HARNIDH KAUR
> 
> I don't think most of you know this, but I work in the development space
> and we're always trying to find cool ways to make tech make the world
> better. I've been trying to read up more about the same. So, here.
> 
> Is 'kind technology' a thing? Where people are trying to change gears of
> existing/incumbent technology to specifically serve vulnerable populations?
> 
> Any existing ideas/something you're working on/things you think SHOULD find
> a kind tech iteration. Gimme!

I would consider things dubbed #tech4good as "kind technology". There is
a long, long list of examples of these kinds of initiatives on the
tech4good / ICT4D branch of the TechSoup community forum: 
http://forums.techsoup.org/cs/community/f/16.aspx 
I regularly post examples to this forum, as do a few others.  

I certainly consider all tech that gives Internet accessibility to
people with disabilities - assistive technologies - as well as
technology that is designed to be accessible for people with
disabilities (people using screen readers, people with color perception
challenges, people who are using a tool that is the equivalent of
tabbing on a computer - meaning they cannot use features like
mouse-overs, etc.) as "kind technology.  

---
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Ms. Jayne Cravens MSc
Portland, Oregon, USA

The web site - http://www.coyotebroad.com
Me on Twitter, other social networks, & my blog: 
http://www.coyotebroad.com/me/jayneonline.shtml

Author: The Last Virtual Volunteering Guidebook
More about the book, and how to buy it 
(as a paperback or as an e-book):
http://www.energizeinc.com/store/1-222-E-1
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>-- 
Liberationtech is public & archives are searchable on Google. Violations of 
list guidelines will get you moderated: 
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech. Unsubscribe, 
change to digest, or change password by emailing the moderator at 
zakwh...@stanford.edu.

Re: [liberationtech] ‘Kind’ technology?

[Tanya Rabourn]

Harnidh,

I think you’ll find a number of examples from financial inclusion projects that 
change the “gears of existing/incumbent technology” (specifically fintech) “to 
specifically serve vulnerable populations.” For example, I was involved in a 
project to adapt mobile money so that Village Savings and Loan groups in Uganda 
could use it to store their groups’ cash securely. Previously, mobile money, 
and it’s methods for identification/authentication, assumed a single user, so 
we had to design a group system. The SMS messages notifying members of 
transactions also increase financial transparency for these groups. 
https://www.grameenfoundation.org/introducing-airtel-weza-uganda

Of course mobile money itself could be considered an example. 

-Tanya

--
Tanya Rabourn
Experience Design for Social Impact
tanya.rabo...@gmail.com
USA +1 646 418 1054
Skype: rabourn




> On Feb 24, 2018, at 10:21 AM, Jayne Cravens  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
>> From: Harnidh Kaur
>> 
>> I don't think most of you know this, but I work in the development space
>> and we're always trying to find cool ways to make tech make the world
>> better. I've been trying to read up more about the same. So, here.
>> 
>> Is 'kind technology' a thing? Where people are trying to change gears of
>> existing/incumbent technology to specifically serve vulnerable populations?
>> 
>> Any existing ideas/something you're working on/things you think SHOULD find
>> a kind tech iteration. Gimme!
>  
> I would consider things dubbed #tech4good as "kind technology". There is a 
> long, long list of examples of these kinds of initiatives on the tech4good / 
> ICT4D branch of the TechSoup community forum:
> http://forums.techsoup.org/cs/community/f/16.aspx
> I regularly post examples to this forum, as do a few others. 
>  
> I certainly consider all tech that gives Internet accessibility to people 
> with disabilities - assistive technologies - as well as technology that is 
> designed to be accessible for people with disabilities (people using screen 
> readers, people with color perception challenges, people who are using a tool 
> that is the equivalent of tabbing on a computer - meaning they cannot use 
> features like mouse-overs, etc.) as "kind technology. 
>  
> 
> 
> ---
> <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
> Ms. Jayne Cravens MSc
> Portland, Oregon, USA
> 
> The web site - http://www.coyotebroad.com
> Me on Twitter, other social networks, & my blog: 
> http://www.coyotebroad.com/me/jayneonline.shtml
> 
> Author: The Last Virtual Volunteering Guidebook
> More about the book, and how to buy it 
> (as a paperback or as an e-book):
> http://www.energizeinc.com/store/1-222-E-1
> <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
>  
>  
> -- 
> Liberationtech is public & archives are searchable on Google. Violations of 
> list guidelines will get you moderated: 
> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech. Unsubscribe, 
> change to digest, or change password by emailing the moderator at 
> zakwh...@stanford.edu.

-- 
Liberationtech is public & archives are searchable on Google. Violations of 
list guidelines will get you moderated: 
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech. Unsubscribe, 
change to digest, or change password by emailing the moderator at 
zakwh...@stanford.edu.