Dr. Gregory Asmolov, King’s College London
Patrick Meier, one of the leading experts in crisis innovations, one of the founders of a crisis mapping community and the author of Digital Humanitarians book describing the role of technology in humanitarian response to crisis situations, asked the question worrying many civil society activists: “Why are we not seeing a major crowdsourced response from “Digital Humanitarians”? If #COVID-19 had exploded in 2010/2011, digital humanitarians would be going all out,” Meier wrote on Twitter.
As a vivid example of this response, Meier cited Help Map’s response to fires in Russia, created in the summer of 2010 (the team comprised of Teplitsa of Social Technologies founder Alexei Sidorenko and the author of this article, Gregory Asmolov, received the Runet Prize for this project – editor’s note). He said that a response of this kind can offer not only an information gathering mechanism but also an instrument of coordinating help.
The answer to the question of how efficient digital instruments can be in humanitarian response to the ongoing pandemic needs, first of all, an analysis of the latest innovations related to coronavirus disease. Almost every serious crisis is accompanied by a surge in innovations, in which the advent of new technologies is trying to offer a response to new challenges. And of course, coronavirus is no exception here. Twitter even has a special hashtag: #covtech
In my thesis, I outlined three types of crisis communication technologies:
- Informing technologies: aimed, first of all, at providing a general informational picture of crisis.
- Alerting technologies: intended to communicate information that could be important for certain users in the context of enhancing their personal security, and to recommend concrete risk mitigation measures.
- Engagement technologies: proposing active forms of participation in crisis responses relying on digital tools that allow mobilizing user resources.
Informing technologies: big data and crisis mapping
One of the major challenges posed by the global crisis, with its picture changing literally every minute, is monitoring information and creating a dynamic picture of what’s going on. This task became especially difficult as the epidemic progressed, considering that besides official data, the number of Internet users who began to share information about the virus has increased exponentially.
In addition, the number of unverified facts, rumors and misinformation was continuously growing. Many experts came to believe that amid the pandemic, we are now witnessing the first outbreak of infodemic in history, because the speed of disseminating information is higher than the speed of spreading any virus. Information is the strongest influencer of decision making in various vital areas, from economy and politics to what a person buys in a store and whether to leave their apartment.
Maps became one of the major instruments of turning informational chaos into an orderly picture of the world. A map created at Johns Hopkins University in the United States has appeared in the first weeks of crisis.
One of the first maps created at Johns Hopkins University in the United States. Screenshot from the homepage coronavirus.jhu.edu/map.html
MIT Technology Review published a rating of the best Covid-19 maps (another rating of maps is available here). The rating was topped by the Singapore map created by UpCode Academy. In fact, this map was only one of the elements of the control panel allowing to see, on the basis of official data, the up-to-date statistical information and geolocation for every instance of contagion. Such a transition from maps to multilevel platforms offering an easy-to-understand picture created on the basis of relatively big data became one of the epidemic-related innovation trends.
The work on creating information-based instruments of handling vast data flows in real time was joined by various players of the geolocation industry, such as Esri, which created a special website devoted to coronavirus. Interestingly enough, though, that one of the most popular control panels was created not by a corporation but by an individual volunteer. The ncov2019.live website was launched by Avi Schiffmann, a 17-year-old high school senior living in a Seattle suburb.
ncov2019.live website. Screenshot from the homepage
According to Avi Schiffmann, he started to work on his website during the Christmas break: “There was a lot of misinformation spreading, and I thought it would be cool to create a website that would become a central hub of information.” Schiffmann asked to support his work by buying him a cup of coffee via a special crowdfunding platform. Another crowdsourced map was created by Reddit users.
It is worth noting that even though conventional mass media tried to create their own pandemic maps, like in the case of New York Times, they were visibly inferior to the initiatives of researchers, programmers and private users.
From informing to warning
Unlike the instruments offering a general picture of events based on an analysis of a large number of sources, warning technologies are intended to convey risk information in the most pinpointed manner. The task is to determine information that directly concerns a particular target audience who, based on this information, must take measures to enhance their personal security and security of others around them.
In this respect, the burden of responsibility rests on bodies of public administration, which are first to receive credible information about the epidemic. In response to coronavirus disease, public authorities in many countries quickly began to use messaging services not only as an efficient communication channel but also because misinformation was rapidly spreading via this channel. The Open Government Products team at the Office of the Prime Minister of Singapore became one of the first to create an efficient risk communication channel.
Official channels were created in Russia as well. For example, despite the official ban on Telegram in Russia, Coronavirus. Moscow Operations Center channel in this messaging service provided information about the flights on which passengers with coronavirus disease were found.
The Health Ministry of Israel launched a special map showing all places visited by persons infected by coronavirus and allowing users to check whether they are in a danger zone. Later, a dedicated “Magen” (Shield) application was launched in order to allow receiving alerts according to geolocation of the user.
Map launched by the Health Ministry of Israel. Screenshot from www.arcgis.com
The applications from independent developers, which use geolocation to help identify the presence of persons with disease near the user, became especially popular in South Korea. Another project, COVID-19 Location History Tool, analyzes geolocation data from a smartphone in order to identify potential proximity of persons infected by virus.
Certain governments took unprecedented measures of monitoring movements of their citizens. Since the use of street surveillance cameras had limited effectiveness, the government of Israel authorized the use of surveillance technologies employed by intelligence agencies to monitor persons suspected of having coronavirus disease and communicate this information to the Health Ministry. After that, this information is transmitted via SMS to persons who had been in contact with a virus-infected person with an order to go into quarantine.
Another example of using personal surveillance technologies to isolate potential virus carriers is taxi apps. Thus, Uber said that they may suspend the accounts of riders or drivers confirmed to have contracted or been exposed to coronavirus.
A whole number of experts are worrying about how new technologies use private information to monitor movements of potential virus carriers. Some of them wonder whether the scope of gathering virus-related data should be limited. At the same time, public authorities emphasize that extraordinary circumstances necessitate extraordinary measures. Still, certain projects, such as Covid19risk, are trying to develop crowdsourced risk monitoring mechanisms which protect data privacy.
Engagement technologies
Engagement technologies envisage active participation of users in crisis response. Experts from British-based Nesta Center for Innovation Research have identified seven ways collective intelligence is tackling the pandemic. One of these ways is participation in the so-called “citizen science” projects. A number of methods do not require any knowledge. For example, Folding@Home project proposes to share computation resources of personal computers to develop drugs that could combat the new virus.
The so-called “serious games” became another instrument of engagement. For example, the University of Washington created a game helping develop a cure against the virus. Research projects were launched to analyze data from social media for the purpose of forecasting virus spreading dynamics. Research crowdsourcing was also used to create low-cost virus detection kits. New open data projects allow to share in public domain the results of the latest research, thus promoting global scientific cooperation.
Collaboration of programmers in technical development field became a separate area of engagement. A special webpage with the list of projects aimed to combat coronavirus has appeared on GitHub. Hackathons devoted to the virus were organized in a number of places. For example, Hack for Wuhan hackathon was held in early March with participation of mentors from MIT, Harvard, Google and other expert centers.
Screenshot from the homepage of Hack for Wuhan hackathon
The hackathon’s topics included new instruments of data analysis and visualization and new forms of epidemic-related content (the hackathon’s GitHub webpage is available here). Another hackathon is held online, and will continue until 12 April. At the same time, technical solutions related not to the virus itself but to how public institutions react to it also began to appear. For example, a group of Chinese programmers created a crowdsourced project in order to preserve the evidence about the spread of virus which began to appear in the Chinese segment of the Internet and which some time after the outbreak of coronavirus disease the Chinese government began to systematically erase.
In the meantime, creative solutions teaching people a safer behavior in the conditions of epidemic also began to appear: for example, an application teaching how not to touch your face. More detailed information about #covtech projects is available in Facebook group and on the website of Coronavirus Tech Handbook.
An application teaching how not to touch your face. Screenshot from donottouchyourface.com website
But like in the case of many other crises, mutual help became one of the main areas of engagement. These projects do not require special expertise on part of the participants, but they strongly depend on geolocation of users. Instruments of mutual help first appeared on the Chinese Internet. One of the first webpages trying to identify possible sources of help was launched in Wuhan in February (its GitHub page is available here).
However, in order to deliver help, the first thing that had to be done was to identify the areas where it was needed. For example, face masks were among the first products that fell in short supply. The government of South Korea shared information about availability of masks via API, thus enabling to create applications helping people find a local drugstore where they could buy products in short supply. Ventilators became another product that fell in a critically short supply. Internet users responded in order to not only identify the shortage but also replenish the supply. Dozens of initiatives were launched to make DIY ventilators; in particular, Helpful Engineers group joined this movement. These initiatives actively discuss the role of home 3‑D printers.
Examples of 3D-printed respirator valves. Image from www.medicaldevice-network.com (Credit: Cristian Fracassi).
There are also general Shortage Maps collecting information about the short supply of various products, starting from sanitizers and ending with food. With the sharp increase of the instances of isolation due to coronavirus epidemic and recommendations to elderly people not to leave home, the topic of mutual help became one of the key points on the agenda of combating the epidemic. Many people became unable to buy products of basic need or, for example, walk their pets.
An example of a shortage map from Google Maps. Screenshot from www.google.com/maps
Even before the outbreak of coronavirus epidemic, there were various applications developed in many countries to coordinate volunteering, both in crisis situations and in daily life. Some of the noteworthy examples include Needlist, onHand and Guardian Circle. A “Rescue Map” of sort was launched in Houston. At the same time, most users in the United Kingdom which joined mutual help initiatives prefer traditional instruments, first of all, WhatsApp and Facebook allowing to create hyperlocal communities. Thus, for example, The Guardian wrote that as of 14 March, there were at least 78 groups of this kind on the Internet. In a couple of weeks , the number of these groups has increased to almost six thousands. A dedicated platform Covid-19 Mutual Aid UK allowed to register new groups and find the closest hyperlocal group to any user in UK. A similar project Covidarnost that seeks to simplify finding the closes hyperlocal group relying on Telegram chatbot was developed in Russia.
A #viralkindess campaign was launched on Twitter, whereby people in Britain could print out a special Help Card with their personal information and information about the help they can provide, and then, disburse these cards among their neighbors.
An example of a Help Card, on which people leave their personal information and information about the help they can provide, and then, disburse these cards among their neighbors.
In addition to participation in the acts of mutual help, Internet users are also engaged in creating content and disseminating information related to the epidemic. For example, a special website of the movement to stop the coronavirus pandemic was launched, called #StayTheFuckHome.
Thanks to a special application, Facebook users also began to add to photographs in their profiles the calls not to leave home. Besides the anti-COVID19 campaigns aimed to increase the effectiveness of isolation, there are numerous groups discussing the credibility and verification of coronavirus-related news.
Finally, one of the forms of active participation featured the advent of a collective factory of epidemic-related humor. Memes devoted to coronavirus became one of the most visible forms of network content. Numerous groups began to pop up, where users share the most apt (in their opinion) memes. Such a “network carnivalization” of crisis may serve, in particular, as a collective mechanism of psychological protection in the conditions of drastic increase of uncertainty and anxiety.
The role of network society in a pandemic situation
An analysis of the role of technologies in informing, alerting and engaging Internet users in the situation of coronavirus epidemic suggests an answer to Patrick Meier’s question why we do not see Help Maps in response to the coronavirus epidemic today. First of all, if we compare the present situation with what was ten years ago, most governments became more effective with using crisis technologies. To a large extent, it became possible, in particular, because the ones who ten years ago were independent network volunteers were later engaged by various institutions as experts and began to apply from the inside the practices we saw ten years earlier from the outside.
For example, the Digital Humanitarian Network created by crisis mappers after an earthquake in Haiti announced that they are closing down, explaining this decision by the fact that traditional institutions now have more opportunities to go digital. Innovative adaptability of these institutions and their preparedness to relatively quickly respond to new challenges stems from the coming of a new generation of employees more familiar with information technologies and, in principle, from the growing role of these technologies in our life.
At the same time, the generation of crisis mappers who responded to the earthquake in Haiti and fires in Russia gave way to a new generation of crisis volunteers. On the one hand, these are the groups possessing highly-professional skills and knowledge – first of all, scientists and programmers. On the other hand, at hyperlocal level this initiative continues to belong to traditional volunteers who use the simplest digital instruments.
The biggest question, however, is not who responds but what problems network mobilization can solve. In this respect, the situation did not fundamentally change over 10 years. Network activists are in demand in two situations: where they can help traditional institutions if these institutions are interested in their help, like, for example, when the government of South Korea shares API to help independent developers; or where the government is unable to efficiently solve problems and that can be helped by network mobilization. Political scientists describe the latter situation as the situation of “limited statehood” in which the government lacks resources and competencies to perform its functions because of crisis.
Examples of limited resources a government has to respond to a crisis can be seen during natural disasters and armed conflicts. During the 2010 fires, Russian Internet users began to buy fire hoses. Crowdfunded projects in Ukraine helped Ukrainians buy drones and night-vision devices for military purposes. New shortages appeared in the coronavirus era. Fire hoses were replaced with ventilators, face masks and sanitizers. And since mere crowdfunding cannot solve this problem, network society took efforts, in particular, to offset the shortages via horizontal production once described by Chris Anderson in his book Makers.
In many countries, the role of network society in increasing the transparency and completeness of informational picture of this crisis remains a no less important function. It concerns not only the morbidity rate but also sophistication of healthcare system. The transparency of conditions in which people who actually or possibly contracted the coronavirus disease stay is especially important. A person with virus is often objectivated by being transformed from a personality into a danger to the society. Situations like that pose heightened risks of dehumanization, especially where public authorities are involved. The ability of ill people to continue to tell their stories via social media is extremely important to make sure that in a pandemic situation we do not lose human face.
When responding to coronavirus, network mobilization of Internet users plays, in fact, two roles. On the one hand, numerous projects are trying to accomplish particular tasks of fighting the epidemic. On the other hand, the function of controlling public institutions, which in an extraordinary situation receive even more extraordinary powers, remains no less important. Such a situation of all-permissiveness on part of the government, described by renowned philosopher Giorgio Agamben as temporary abolition of human rights in the name of fighting an emergency, needs special mechanisms of controlling the government. On the other hand, network innovations have another effect of influence over public institutions. According to Ivan Begtin, a Russian specialist in open data, in response to a crisis, new network initiatives create competition for public institutions, compelling them to continue developing their innovative solutions.
Therefore, three functions of network mobilization we observed 10 years ago – increasing the transparency of information around a crisis, controlling public institutions, and self-organization where the government is not efficient enough – remain of contemporary importance today. Network mobilization is necessary where the government needs it or where the government doesn’t work. At the same time, the range of possibilities for network mobilization and instruments available to solve problems has significantly widened. Ushahidi (a platform that was used for crowdsourcing during Russian wildfires in 2010) gave way to new methods of working with open data, new platforms and communities for programmers and scientists, machine learning and AI. The range of new instruments allows thousands of people to actively participate in crisis response despite isolation, instead of passively following the course of events in mass media or spreading panic in personal communication networks.
There is another factor which makes fires or earthquakes fundamentally different from a pandemic situation. In the times of local disasters, the majority of respondents remain safely outside geographical boundaries of the crisis area. These are people who continue to work and devote only their spare time to crisis – what NYU scholar Clay Shirky called “cognitive surplus”. In the pandemic situation, crisis affected almost everyone. Moreover, as a result of quarantine, many people were forced to stay home at their computers. Therefore, the “cognitive surplus” increased and became the central characteristic of employing various specialists who can help solve crisis-related problems. The same is true about volunteers at hyperlocal level, who also found themselves locked inside “hyperlocal space” of their neighborhood.
The speed of “coronovations” is increasing. New instruments and new projects appear every day. The competition among crisis maps, risk warning or volunteering coordination applications serves as an internal mechanism of accelerating crisis innovations. But the most important thing is not the speed of innovations per se but how quickly Internet users identify new challenges necessitating their response. At the same time, amid the growing magnitude of network mobilization, problems related to misinformation, absence of critical thinking and panic network effects remain a serious challenge posed by the present crisis. Therefore, global network society actually controls in the pandemic situation not only public institutions but, first of all, itself. Staying home at our computers, we become lonelier but at the same time more united, so what form this union will take and what we’ll look like after we get out of this crisis depend, first of all, on us ourselves.
The article was published in Russian at Teplitsa, Technologies for Social Good
