Building Technology and Successful Use Cases based on the most marganilzed as the answer to the problem
Building Technology & Successful Use Cases Based On The Most Marginalized As The Answer To the Problem.
Session: 12I
Convener: Shireen Mitchell
Notes-taker(s): Grace McCants
Tags for the session - technology discussed/ideas considered:
Discussion notes, key understandings, outstanding questions, observations, and, if appropriate to this discussion: action items, next steps:
How are we creating successful models particularly during development. Background: digitalsista started coding when she was 10, created first women who code/women & girls fo color in 1999. Moved into space around online harassment and how tech companies were not paying attention to how platforms were being weaponized. Overarching problem: There’s no tech fix for the human behavior. We start with the framework for building the tech and nudging the humans. I believe that is flawed--we should nudge the tech instead of nudging the humans.
Other viewpoints are welcome. Model: “move fast and break things”. A lot of things have been broken because we’ve been moving fast. We’ve been looking for a social solution tech can solve versus looking at social problems. Been looking at how social groups form and if we watch that we can look at how tech can support the most marginalized. We can see “trickle down” hasn’t worked.
Broad conversation, these things are new, and there are some jarring frameworks. We are built into a system that we think “should” work this way. Failure of AI systems in terms of face recognition, how it’s used to surveille. Some of that is built on concept of building for greater good-- the fix is not the problem -- the problem is we design things without thinking about the concepts.
Grace: Some of the underlying issues are based on how money is designed and the fact that the playing field is not fair. The system is Digitalsista: Often the people solving the problem aren’t the population for whom they are solving problem.
JeffO: Agreed, the human operating system-- everything we are writing to is writing to our human nature. Staring with “most vulnerable first” starts with ancient times, where the root communities had to care for the fragile people. It’s “encoded”. Underneath, the most vulnerable, the idea of “reaching from the height down” is ideal. How can we play from the human operating system forward. P2P alliance is looking into that.
Digitalsista: Awareness of the fact that we are part of how the system moves. the system disproportionally impacts certain groups. Especially the harms--they think they’re separated from the harms and they’re not.
Celine: Was looking at an attendee demoing a solution, and I asked about how that might impact people who are suffering from abuse at home and his response was “Well, nonprofits deal with that”. There’s a disconnect and it starts with teh creators and builders and technologists. If we don’t think of ourselves as at the top of a system where it will affect the bottom (I hate that language) but we have to think of ourselves as part of the system. It’s not enough to think about how we are going to reach marginalized solutions what’s more important is bringing them to the table or going to their table.
From Celine Takatsuno to Everyone: 11:02 PM thank you for asking
From Lisa LeVasseur to Everyone: 11:06 PM don't get me started on agile and lean as they contribute to going fast and breaking things.... agree with that hypothesis/observation.
From Lisa LeVasseur to Everyone: 11:15 PM dissociation
Digitalsista: Especially with identity part. There are two groups of people… anonymous was a woman.. I used to get on line pretending not to be a woman or pretending to be black. I would pretend to be somebody I wasn’t. It’s not fair that people have to take away parts of their identity to get something done or participate fully. Eventually I chose this name because I didn’t want to hide anymore.
From Marc Davis to Everyone: 11:16 PM One of the approaches to a “human-centered” design process is “participatory design” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participatory_design) which directly involves “users” as stakeholders in the design process much earlier and more fundamentally than traditional “user testing” approaches. Are you advocating for a participatory design approach?
Digital Sista: When talking about anonymity, for example, the protections for people who are being harmed are different than the protections for people who aren’t
From Lisa LeVasseur to Everyone: 11:22 PM - Use Cases - Abuse Cases - Misuse Cases- identifying blindspots Grace: Example from Anna De Liddo from Open University in Milton Keynes near London. She was creating a discussion platform where people were able to state their opinions by posting articles or videos, and then the responders were able to discuss the source of those articles or videos, or the info in the articles. Because people were talking about the articles, it was not seen as a personal attack and the people were able to improve their decision-making and sensemaking skills and even change opinions. Even people with vehement opinions were able to change their opinions. So we can create digital systems like this which are able to improve outcomes if we observe how the human psyche works and design for that.
Digital Sista. There’s rage quitting because people didn’t like the process and then there are people in the system who might be intentionally causing people to quit. We also want people to have their voices heard while the work is being done versus just using the system that’s supposed to change. We notice the people who are missing and feel frustrated but we don’t see that as part of the final product or the use case.
Marc. What would a design process look like? 1. You must have use cases that included marginalized people. More than that would be 2. Design first for marginalized populations. 3. Not only do that, but have the people who are included in the design process as stakeholders and participants in the design process. Scandanavian, “co design process”. Are those the kind of things you’re advocating? Wanted to get clarity.
Digitalsista: I appreciate that, and Lisa commented, so I’m going to ask her to jump in. The way you though through that process, from a design process, we need to look at the users themselves. We have the procut and then we have beta users. In that moment we have already confirmed that this is the core product. We’re dealing with the stresses of where the users built it out rather than where the users would have built it in a core system.
For example, simple example, everyone has heard the term “black twitter” The term “blakc twitter” is a concept based on a specific community that’s carved out a piece of twitter just for them while twitter is a public platform. Only certain groups of people are communicating with each other in this group. Some who step into “black twitter” step into something they haven’t seen before. Those who don’t understand the push of twitter into what becomes “black twitter” they see something foreign or abnormal, yet that community existed the entire time but they only notice it when it’s in a mainstream media narrative. Twitter has done a horrible job of understanding this phenomenon.
From Celine Takatsuno to Everyone: 11:27 PM one challenge/problem with an expressed participatory design approach is the failure to consider/include/realize the impact on passive or recognized stakeholders —they’re not users, but they may be affected by what we design and build. tech has social impact no matter if it’s ‘social impact tech’ or not.
(yes to participatory design, and @mark great observations)
From Jody to Everyone: 11:29 PM no (oh - just see zoom has a button for that)
From Kaliya Identity Woman to Everyone: 11:29 PM There is also Native Twitter, Disabled Twitter, Autistic Twitter etc…
Mark: In participatory design, that impacts the design process on day 1: Who is in the design process.
Lisa: It struck me that we have the idea of “use case”. If you’re not building use case around misuse and abuse, you’re missing the boat. The participatory design process is to minimize blind spots. I do have a practical question --in some sense some technologies are really for everybody. Like Facebook, it’s broad for everybody. How do you have everybody at the table? Is there some checklist or model or tool. There need to be some tools to help identify blind spots.
Digitalsista: About FB, when we think about the design, we have to think about the origination of the design. FB was designed for “Hot or Not”. We’ve done the research. Because it was designed for “hot or not” it was not designed for whether the hot woman was black or brown. When you build out from there, you aren’t building from a use for everybody. It’s already a system that is excluding or biased for a certain kind of system. The core design was exclusionary. We got there, it was not just exclusionary in terms of race and sexuality. It was exclusionary in terms of age and education. The system is now stretched and you are trying to do a fix for something that was built into the core. the people who come to work for that company are going to be oriented towards that framework. FB is the perfect example of core design that was not for everybody that people still think is for everybody and we are watching how the platform is being used to harm people, and FB is struggling to fix. At least I think the 3 things you said, Kaliya and I work on the concept of threat models. I do like the frame work in terms of use cases, abuse cases and misuse cases. I think that helps to find the blind spots. Thank you.
From Jody to Everyone: 11:29 PM no (oh - just see zoom has a button for that)
From Kaliya Identity Woman to Everyone: 11:29 PM There is also Native Twitter, Disabled Twitter, Autistic Twitter etc…
From Lisa LeVasseur to Everyone: 11:33 PM intention vs actual adoption
From Marc Davis to Everyone: 11:33 PM @CelineTakatsuno Great point about the social impact of technology on non-users. Definitely need to consider that in the design process and the iterative redesign process given unexpected outcomes.
Shannon. To questions about how we be informed as we move forward. I’m a community organizer and there’s a slogan (Nothing about us without us.) If “they” think they’re “reaching down” for someone they think is “other” therein lies the problem.
Digitalsista: they also get defined as sub-cultures as if their inferior
Shannon: the erasing of the creators. Someone creates something amazing and someone more resource-centered takes it and the founder gets erased. That needs to not get erased and the media can be part of that. I’m interested in going into communities and starting there. TikTok -- it’s been interesting to see the algorithms and ideas about some of the people feelign threatened by older people and the racism and transphobia have been overt. This happened in FB when they didn’t have awareness of who
From Marc Davis to Everyone: 11:38 PM @CelineTakatsuno Great point about the social impact of technology on non-users. Definitely need to consider that in the design process and the iterative redesign process given unexpected outcomes. One common way to deal with designing systems for “everybody” is to identify representative “personas” (not a real person, but a fictional representative of a user population) and to detail “scenarios” for these personas. Other technique in designing for “everybody” is to do A/B testing of different designs across large populations to see which design is most effective. Problem with both of the above approaches is they do not require that users are co-designers or stakeholders in the design process from the beginning. Participatory design does ideally accomplish that. From Lisa LeVasseur to Everyone: 11:38 PM FB highlights an interesting problem: post-launch product pivoting . How do you (1) recognize it, (2) inject participation of new stakeholders in a moving/live product.
From Lisa LeVasseur to Everyone: 11:43 PM FB highlights an interesting problem: post-launch product pivoting . How do you (1) recognize it, (2) inject participation of new stakeholders in a moving/live product. exactly. we aren't separate.
Grace: It’s naive to think that we can fix a system that is much deeper in how business models and money work. It’s impossible for our brains to function in a way that would really honestly even out the playing field between the haves and have-nots. From Marc Davis to Everyone: 11:46 PM So to answer @Grace, can the design process itself (and the structures of collaboration and ownership the process is embedded within) be structured so that it both embodies the socio-economic relationships and structures we would want to move toward as well as produce systems that help move society towards that change?
@ Marc, that's a great inquiry. I'm particularly interested in new forms of currency and interaction that will replace the current system as it continues to prove itself inadequate to resolve the problems humanity is facing today.
John: Works in public service. It’s a privilege to work in an area that’s about public service rather than money. It’s a piece of the cultural fab that is great. And one thing that is troubling around technology is that we’ve forgotten that there is a good that government can serve in creatin software that is grounded in service values and not in business values. Government can and should invest in software that is for the public good and regulate more carefully how private sector uses that and leverages that work that was done with the public money.
We need to grow the tent. Problem with not having enough diversity in our little community is that our community is little. I think the tent gets grown by considering the social aspects, we call that governance aspects. We live in the world of people and in the world of relationships and those are human relationships. It’s those human relationships and norms ceremonies that are too often shaped by the technical implementation. THink about the human elements first and turn apply them to the community you belong to.
Digitalsista: I was part of a movement to try to get Wifi to people who didn’t have, and we had huge fights with the tech companies coming after us, and the government either participating or the government trying to come up with their own version, and the tech companies going after them because tehy perceived it as taking away their profit margins. Today in the days of Covid, there are families that have to drive to the school, even though the school gave them a laptop, to get access to the internet. Those are the kinds of phenomena that we don't ven think about. there are people who don’t even have running water. That includes the way government operates as well as business. It’s not just what Grace pointed to.
John: Idea of verifiable origins and greater observability on operations that could be helpful.
Jeff: Taking a step back and thinking about who we are… and thinking about sensitivity training. the idea of “the other” causing a disturbance and being an offensive issue is a very anciet issue. The ide of the other wasn’t generally a great thing. In terms of human OS sensitivity training, you can use some grace to understand that’s how we are constructed and help people learn and move away from that. Another thing that came up from e around glack twitter it reminded me about a software called “Drive” designed from street level up, navigation. Looked at all things in the space. What won was Google Maps, architected as search. Had to include all search, but search only elevated the places that mattered to lots of people. So some places didn’t have the gravity. The root concept of navigation was superceded by being driven by search.
Johanas: There’s also a trend that next year will be a trajectory from last year. Right now we “overshoot” in CO2, farmland, oceans, money creation -- and if you were going to design a pinprick that kills the overshoot it would be hard to design something better than the Covid pandemic. We have to get that the future will be very unlike the past. The people who will get first is those who are already marginalized. We have to go forward in a way that is very different than everything we do. It would be a mistake to think that next year will be anything like this year.
Digitalsista: Where we are right now is a conglomeration of what we did at the past. We should start all over and go back to the root. I dont think when we talk about design, technology design, that we can do anything like we did it before. People who want normalcy are people who weren’t living in a marginalized framework.
Johanas: I looked at history around pandemics. Spanish Flu, 3 emporers stopped being emperoar. The black death in the 14th century is credited for ending feudelism. and that’s just the pandemic not including the otehr things.
From Marc Davis to Everyone: 11:50 PM @Grace sounds fascinating and needed.
From Lisa LeVasseur to Everyone: 11:51 PM @Grace interesting related talks about that in VRM/Me2B Day--trending towards coops.
From Me to Everyone: 11:54 PM @Jeff, not to mention that Google makes money from advertising businesses.
From Jakki Bedsole to Everyone: 11:58 PM I just wanted to share, I work for an organization where we have implemented a participatory design framework and development process to build an application for survivors of human trafficking and gender based violence where the people who thought of the software product, those informing it, those leading the design and development and those who will be involved in the testing, are all members of the community. This has given us the ability to build AS a community and WITH our community rather than going to the community to solely check our assumptions. We're at the very beginning of our work together but there's so much value we've already seen, being part of a community, and designing and developing with our community. It's been both empowering and more productive which is cool. We very much have to sit in constant reflection of how we are part of these systems that harm our survivor siblings and communities, and how what we develop needs to fight and not perpetuate those harms.
From JeffO-StL to Everyone: 11:58 PM St. Louis, MO USA was a model for overcimng the Spanish Flu and became a precident model for the management of such this! Go StL!
From Me to Everyone: 11:58 PM at a Europe friendly time, please Johana
Dee: When we talk about marginalized communities, there’s a problem with native indigenous women going missing and are usually murdered. You’re telling me that these people have 10X probability of these women being murdered and nobody knows where they are? People who are marginalized don’t have a voice at all. How are you reaching out across the nation? The technology that we have and develop is made for people who are already wealthy. We don’t cater to how these communities could use the technology. I met relatives who live on the reservation. I just typed it on Google Maps, but they don’t have street names. It was a surreal experience. Somewhere 20 hours away, my privilege was so embarrassing but I was happy to see that my technology privilege is so different.
From JeffO-StL to Everyone: 11:59 PM http://www.businessinsider.com/history-of-how-st-louis-vs-philadelphia-treated-1918-flu-pandemic-2020-4
From Celine Takatsuno to Everyone: 11:59 PM @jakki awesome
From JeffO-StL to Everyone: 12:00 AM http://www.influenzaarchive.org/cities/city-stlouis.html
From John Jordan to Everyone: 12:01 AM 15 mins
From Celine Takatsuno to Everyone: 12:01 AM thank you for that @dee
Jakki: In our organization for survivors of trafficing and abuse, building tools and resources for our community has been productive because we’ve beena ble to work with our community and with each other as we build. Hundreds to thousands of people and hopefully growing all the time.
Johannas: Practical advice anyone? Resource constrained for a long time. How do we think about this. how do we bring in these people at this time?
Grace: Take on interns from marginalized communities and pay people from areas of the world where it’s cheaper to hire those people.
Digitalsista: There was a place in DC where we were sharing space and connecting people to the communities that they say they’re building for. From startup to big version. Typically, in those moments, I’m one of the only black women who can see it’s not going to end well. Sometimes I tell them, sometimes I don’t. They don’t have the resources. I’m a proponent of what happens in the tech startup framework. But there is a failure in what you’re saying. before they get the funding they’ve already built their core and the core becomes unmaleable.
From Lisa LeVasseur to Everyone: 12:11 AM it's the fish saying "what the heck's water?" how do we practically work with the reality of our blindspots?
Marc: Have the population be stakeholders in your enterprise from the beginning. Also represnet the popuations that you want to talk to. Standard: Talk to and involve people who are different from yourself.
From Celine Takatsuno to Everyone: 12:11 AM @johannes it’s terrific that you are aware and seeking perspective. but diversity of thought isn’t necessarily diversity in hiring. and, even the best funded companies fail to think about harms or impacts outside of their intended ones. look at zoom - with the ceo saying they simply “never seriously thought about harassment”
JeffO: This thing takes me back to an experience, I spoke as a parent to a school community in 1994, and I represented a professional career in technology. I said it does not matter the color of your skin, your head pouring into these tools carry value. I didn’t impart to them that there are prejudices… but technology is agnostic in the ability to contribute to software and I hope the rewards come back.
Kaliya: At least 2 different things within community are happening to improve diversity equity and inclusion. Myself and Shannon are going to be co-leading an ongoing learning group to help leaders increase capacity and Lisa is also doing something in this area.
Lisa: We have very little diversity in the P2P alliance and I had this sudden feeling we are doomed. I’ve been seeking information from my mentors and there’s a woman out of Georgetown University and she’s put together a custom training. she said you have to build the culture that you want and it’s not just about diversity and inclusivity and you can't just say, you have to be. I’m thinking about opening up that course to the whole community of how we want to be, how we want to treat each other. Yes thank you @digitalsista! These conversations are essential and I’m so glad we’re holding these spaces!
From Celine Takatsuno to Everyone: 12:17 AM exploitative. and accepted. sigh.
From Shannon Casey to Everyone: 12:17 AM I’m offering a session tomorrow with Infominer on effective connection/communication (NVC) This topic will support better understanding where we might have blind spots.
From JeffO-StL to Everyone: 12:17 AM Relative value though sometimes. A few US dollars is a bunch "over there" sometime too.
From Marc Davis to Everyone: 12:18 AM NVC rocks :-).
From Lisa LeVasseur to Everyone: 12:18 AM ohh nice @shannon we should do NVC training every iiw!!!!
From Me to Everyone: 12:18 AM That is one perspective. The other perspective is those people would have no way to make so much money in their society. I have people on my team who make double and triple what their neighbors make. That's not exploitive of those people.
Digitalsista: We should be aware of the way in which that we take advantage of societies where people are paid less because we don’t want to pay US wages. We need to take care of our framing. We need to continue to consider how to build these systems from the ground up.
