I've seen talks of "data trusts" emerging online, which I find somewhat relevant to Srnicek's last few pages on keeping platforms in check.
Here's a definition according to the Ada Lovelace Institute: "Data trusts create a vehicle for individuals to state their aspirations for data use and mandate a trustee to pursue these aspirations... data trusts might work better in contexts where individuals and groups wish to define the terms of data use by creating a new institution (a trust) to steward data on their behalf, by representing them in negotiations about data use."
And here's a brief MIT Technology Review article on data trusts more broadly: https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/02/24/1017801/data-trust-cybersecurity-big-tech-privacy/
But if the raw material of our current state of capitalism is data, what will a data trust ultimately be if not just another mode of managing capital, especially if they are private institutions? Like any other legal trust, some data trusts, no matter how collective, would be more valuable than others, both by quantity and the information the data provide. So I would assume these "more valuable" trusts to be better managed and represented than others, just like legal counsel. Who assigns the trustees? Who are the beneficiaries? Who qualifies to be a beneficiary?
Just as legal counsel is a privilege, I personally find this idea of data trusts to be a noble attempt, but perhaps ultimately exclusive as well. And while data trusts are envisioned after unions and the idea of ethical data stewardship––data trusts "could allow us to exercise our rights as producers of data in much the same way trade unions allow workers to exercise their rights," says the MIT Technology Review––we have to remember that unions have long been quelled in many parts of the world already. Not to be too pessimistic, but wouldn't this inevitably be the same fate for any noble idea of public or private data trusts?
Super interesting Hyejoo! I really like your like with the Srnicek reading to focus the economic imperatives of capitalism. I have come across data trusts before as one proposed solution to enable indigenous Australians to reclaim control over their data. This is an attempt to mitigate further colonial extraction, particularly of the data of the deceased who cannot advocate for themselves. The idea here is that should they wish to share the data, the money gained would go back into the community rather than solely benefitting governments/corporations that use the data. This has been particularly salient in a sporting context with the magnitude of data being collected about first nations people, and health context where there are seen as “more valuable”.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you though, the trust may only be as strong as its legal arrangement. As some communities are less supported or well resourced than others, they may be pressured into giving up their data for less favourable terms. After all, we saw this happen the uneven experiences of land sovereignty in Australia. Perhaps ‘ownership’ isn’t the right model here. But without some form of governance, control or sovereignty, how will the digital colonialism be any different from the modes that preceded it?