Vertical Crowdsourcing (Russia) - Revision history

Editor2018 at 20:38, 17 May 2019

2019-05-17T20:38:27Z

Editor2018 at 20:36, 17 May 2019

2019-05-17T20:36:28Z

Editor2018 at 14:35, 17 May 2019

2019-05-17T14:35:17Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:35, 17 May 2019
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{infobox		{{infobox
	\| nameofpractice = Vertical ~~Crowdsourcing~~		\| nameofpractice =Vertical crowdsourcing
	\| location = Russia		\| flagemoji = 🇷🇺
	\| imagemap = Russia map.png		\| definition =Digital technologies harnessed by the state to create semblance of openness, while in practice neutralising citizens activity and exerting control
	\| ~~imageflag~~ = Russia ~~flag.png~~		\| location =Russia
	\| authorofpiece = Gregory Asmolov		\| imagemap =Russia map.png
	\| authorinstitution = London School of Economics, UK		\| clusters =
	}}		[[:Category:Domination\|Domination]] – [[:Category: Motivational ambivalence\| Motivational ambivalence]] – [[:Category: Control\| Control]] – [[:Category: Informal governance\| Informal governance]]
			\| categories =
	'''~~''Original text:~~ Gregory Asmolov, London School of Economics, UK'''''		[[:Category:Russia\|Russia]] – [[:Category: FSU\| FSU]] – [[:Category: Information\| Information]] – [[:Category: Cyberinformality\| Cyberinformality]] – [[:Category: Internet\| Internet]] – [[:Category: Public opinion\| Public opinion]] – [[:Category: PR\| PR]] – [[:Category: Elite\| Elite]] – [[:Category: Public service\| Public service]]
			\| authorofpiece =Gregory Asmolov
	~~<div~~ class="~~toccolours mw~~-~~collapsible mw~~-~~collapsed~~">		\| authorinstitution =Department of Media and Communications, London School of Economics, UK
	‘Vertical crowdsourcing’ refers to the ways in which digital technologies can be		\| authorwebsite =[http://www.lse.ac.uk/media@lse/WhosWho/PhdResearchers/GregoryAsmolov.aspx Profile page at LSE]}}
			<big>'''By Gregory Asmolov, Department of Media and Communications, London School of Economics, UK'''</big>
			[[Category:Domination]]
			[[Category: Motivational ambivalence]]
			[[Category: Control]]
			[[Category: Informal governance]]
			[[Category:Russia]]
			[[Category: FSU]]
			[[Category: Information]]
			[[Category: Cyberinformality]]
			[[Category: Internet]]
			[[Category: Public opinion]]
			[[Category: PR]]
			[[Category: Elite]]
			[[Category: Public service]]
			[[Category:Entry]]
			[[Category: Volume 2]]
			{\| class="wikitable"
			\|-
			\|style="font-size:1.1em;"\| ‘Vertical crowdsourcing’ refers to the ways in which digital technologies can be
	harnessed by state institutions to create a semblance of openness and participation, while in		harnessed by state institutions to create a semblance of openness and participation, while in
	practice neutralising citizens’ activity and exerting control over them. ‘Crowdsourcing’ in its		practice neutralising citizens’ activity and exerting control over them. ‘Crowdsourcing’ in its
Line 19:		Line 38:
	Press)</ref>. In ‘vertical crowdsourcing’, state		Press)</ref>. In ‘vertical crowdsourcing’, state
	authorities solicit such participation in order to fake or control it.		authorities solicit such participation in order to fake or control it.
			\|}

	~~<div class="mw-collapsible-content">~~
	Social media, social networking sites and crowdsourcing platforms can contribute to		Social media, social networking sites and crowdsourcing platforms can contribute to
	the empowerment of individual users, including new forms of civic participation<ref>Shirky, C. 2008. Here Comes Everybody: The Power of Organizing Without Organizations.		the empowerment of individual users, including new forms of civic participation<ref>Shirky, C. 2008. Here Comes Everybody: The Power of Organizing Without Organizations.
Line 145:		Line 164:
	tools can position users as object of control, contributing to decreasing transparency and		tools can position users as object of control, contributing to decreasing transparency and
	accountability and preventing genuine civic participation.		accountability and preventing genuine civic participation.
	~~</div>~~
	~~</div>~~

	==~~Notes~~==		==References==
	<references />		<references />

	~~[[Category:Entry]]~~
	~~[[Category:Russia]]~~

Editor2018 at 10:26, 10 May 2019

2019-05-10T10:26:36Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:26, 10 May 2019
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{infobox		{{infobox
	\| nameofpractice = Vertical ~~crowdsourcing~~		\| nameofpractice = Vertical Crowdsourcing
	\| location = Russia		\| location = Russia
	\| imagemap = Russia map.png		\| imagemap = Russia map.png

Editor2018 at 10:24, 10 May 2019

2019-05-10T10:24:47Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:24, 10 May 2019
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{infobox		{{infobox
	\| nameofpractice = Vertical ~~Crowdsourcing~~		\| nameofpractice = Vertical crowdsourcing
	\| location = Russia		\| location = Russia
	\| imagemap = Russia map.png		\| imagemap = Russia map.png
Line 36:		Line 36:
	208–26.</ref>. While such practices can be		208–26.</ref>. While such practices can be
	found worldwide, this entry focuses on the Russian-language internet (colloquially known as		found worldwide, this entry focuses on the Russian-language internet (colloquially known as
	‘''Runet''’) as a case study of the various forms vertical crowdsourcing.		‘''Runet''’) as a case study of the various forms [[vertical crowdsourcing]].

	In analysing vertical crowdsourcing, it is helpful to view digital users as occupying		In analysing vertical crowdsourcing, it is helpful to view digital users as occupying
Line 68:		Line 68:
	Vertical crowdsourcing is often marked by so-called 'Photoshop governance': state		Vertical crowdsourcing is often marked by so-called 'Photoshop governance': state
	authorities using digital technologies to substitute an actual solution in real life with a fake		authorities using digital technologies to substitute an actual solution in real life with a fake
	‘solution’ in digital space<ref name="asmo">Asmolov G. The Kremlin's Cameras and Virtual Potemkin Villages: ICT and the		‘solution’ in digital space<ref name="asmo">Asmolov G. The Kremlin's Cameras and Virtual [[Potemkin villages\|Potemkin Villages]]: ICT and the
	Construction of Statehood, in “Bits and Atoms Information and Communication Technology		Construction of Statehood, in “Bits and Atoms Information and Communication Technology
	in Areas of Limited Statehood”. Ed.: S. Livingston and G. Walter-Drop, Oxford University		in Areas of Limited Statehood”. Ed.: S. Livingston and G. Walter-Drop, Oxford University

Admin at 13:12, 3 July 2018

2018-07-03T13:12:39Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:12, 3 July 2018
Line 150:		Line 150:
	==Notes==		==Notes==
	<references />		<references />

			[[Category:Entry]]
			[[Category:Russia]]

Admin: Created page with "{{infobox | nameofpractice = Vertical Crowdsourcing | location = Russia | imagemap = Russia map.png | imageflag = Russia flag.png | authorofpiece = Gregory Asmolov..."

2018-05-24T21:11:52Z

Created page with "{{infobox | nameofpractice = Vertical Crowdsourcing | location = Russia | imagemap = Russia map.png | imageflag = Russia flag.png | authorofpiece = Gregory Asmolov..."

New page

{{infobox
| nameofpractice = Vertical Crowdsourcing
| location = Russia
| imagemap = Russia map.png
| imageflag = Russia flag.png
| authorofpiece = Gregory Asmolov
| authorinstitution = London School of Economics, UK
}}

'''''Original text: Gregory Asmolov, London School of Economics, UK'''''

<div class="toccolours mw-collapsible mw-collapsed">
‘Vertical crowdsourcing’ refers to the ways in which digital technologies can be
harnessed by state institutions to create a semblance of openness and participation, while in
practice neutralising citizens’ activity and exerting control over them. ‘Crowdsourcing’ in its
regular sense refers to ‘the practice of obtaining information or services by soliciting input
from a large number of people, typically via the Internet and often without offering
compensation’<ref>Oxford English Dictionary. 2016. Entry on ‘crowdsourcing’ (Oxford: Oxford University
Press)</ref>. In ‘vertical crowdsourcing’, state
authorities solicit such participation in order to fake or control it.

<div class="mw-collapsible-content">
Social media, social networking sites and crowdsourcing platforms can contribute to
the empowerment of individual users, including new forms of civic participation<ref>Shirky, C. 2008. Here Comes Everybody: The Power of Organizing Without Organizations.
New York, NY: Penguin Press.</ref><ref>Amichai-Hamburger Yair, K. Y.A. McKenna & T. Samuel-Azran, E-empowerment:
Empowerment by the Internet, Computers in Human Behavior 24 (2008) 1776–1789</ref>. They can also increase transparency and accountability
of state activity. Yet those same technologies can also be used by institutional actors to exert
surveillance and control over individual users<ref>Morozov, E. 2011. The Net Delusion: The Dark Side of Internet Freedom, New York: Public
Affairs.</ref><ref>Gunitsky S., Corrupting the Cyber-Commons: Social Media as a Tool of Autocratic Stability,
Perspectives on Politics 13.1, March 2015, p.42-54, doi.org/10.1017/S1537592714003120</ref>. The
ambivalence at the heart of ‘vertical crowdsourcing’ relies on the capacity of digital
platforms to simultaneously replicate two layers of the relationship between institutions and
citizens. The first layer approaches citizens as subjects for partnership, the while second layer
approaches them as objects of governance<ref>Foucault, M. 1982. “The Subject and Power.” In Michel Foucault: Beyond Structuralism and
Hermeneutics, eds. H. Dreyfus and P. Rabinow. Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
208–26.</ref>. While such practices can be
found worldwide, this entry focuses on the Russian-language internet (colloquially known as
‘''Runet''’) as a case study of the various forms vertical crowdsourcing.

In analysing vertical crowdsourcing, it is helpful to view digital users as occupying
two simultaneous roles: subjects taking part in activity directed at specific goals alongside
institutional actors; and objects of institutional actors’ activity that seeks to control and
govern the users. It is the capacity of information technologies to produce symbolic (i.e. fake)
constructions of transparency, accountability and user empowerment that enables their users
to be constituted as subjects and objects at the same time: the digital user is a subject in the
symbolic dimension, but an object of digital governance in the actual dimension. For
instance, while on a symbolic level a given technology may propose an increase in
transparency or new opportunities for engagement, on the actual level the user is either
prevented from taking part in the activity or/and addressed as an object of control.

There are different types of digital tools that deal with transparency and
accountability. One group of tools presents open data about the activities of specific
organisations. While open databases can promote crowdsourcing of independent analysis and
holding an organisation to account, in some cases they provide only limited information, or
the data is not provided in a useable format. Accordingly, while in general open data
contributes to transparency, providing such data can also be a symbolic act that portrays an
organisation as transparent, while in reality contributing little to transparency. A second set of
tools dealing with transparency and accountability is crowdsourcing platforms that aggregate
information about problems and promise to resolve the issues reported. In 2011 as a part of
an initiative by President Dmitry Medvedev, the Russian government launched an online
platform ‘Russia without fools’ (''Rossiya bez durakov''). Medvedev claimed that the purpose of
the website was, ‘to find the most nonsensical and harmful bureaucratic practices in Russia.’
He stated that procedures would be changed and some officials might even lose their jobs on
the basis of information crowdsourced from the website. However, the website was closed
two years later<ref>Zykov, V. 2014. ‘“Rossiya bez durakov” dolgo ne prozhila’, Izvestiya, 15 January,
http://izvestia.ru/news/563910</ref>.

Vertical crowdsourcing is often marked by so-called 'Photoshop governance': state
authorities using digital technologies to substitute an actual solution in real life with a fake
‘solution’ in digital space<ref name="asmo">Asmolov G. The Kremlin's Cameras and Virtual Potemkin Villages: ICT and the
Construction of Statehood, in “Bits and Atoms Information and Communication Technology
in Areas of Limited Statehood”. Ed.: S. Livingston and G. Walter-Drop, Oxford University
Press 2013.</ref>. For example, local authorities in many countries
use websites in order to allow citizens to submit reports about various type of problems e.g.
potholes and other infrastructural issues. In principle, the submission of a report to the
website should lead to action taken by the authorities to resolve the problem. However, such
websites can serve as tools that satisfy citizens’ need to complain easily, but with no
consequent action taken by the authorities – or even worse, the faking of action taken. For
example, following the submission of photo of a courtyard blocked by snow to a website run
by the Moscow Mayor's Office, a local official reported that the problem was solved by
posting a photo showing the yard free of snow. A local blogger reported that the snow was
digitally removed with Photoshop, while no actual action was taken on the ground.

The Russian presidential elections of 2012 provided a case of the symbolic
construction of electoral transparency. The Russian government rolled out a system of
webcams that broadcasted live video streams from 95,000 polling stations in Russia to a
dedicated platform (http://webvybory2012.ru), where any citizen could follow the voting in every
part of Russia. The Russian authorities used the project to respond to allegations of electoral
fraud by claiming that the presidential elections were among the most transparent in
international practice. The project thus enabled the government to create a symbolic
construction of transparency that supported the legitimacy of the elections<ref name="asmo />.
While in theory the webcams enabled public scrutiny of electoral conduct to be
crowdsourced, in practice they obstructed it. Crucially, the platform did not allow any action
to be taken once a fraud was detected. It was difficult to retrieve data from the video archive,
and the courts that considered cases of election fraud did not have a legal foundation to
incorporate the webcam recordings as legitimate evidence.

Another set of digital tools portray citizens’ participation as a horizontal, bottom-up
action (i.e. regular crowdsourcing), whereas in reality they are controlled and directed from
above (i.e. vertical crowdsourcing). In 2014 the Moscow Mayor's Office introduced a website
called ‘Active Citizen’ (http://ag.mos.ru) with the ostensible purpose of allowing Moscow
residents greater participation in decision-making. But independent experts questioned if the
website contributes to participation, with some<ref>Babitzky, A. 2015 Aktivnye grazhdane skladirovany na serverah merii, Vedomosti, 23
October, http://www.vedomosti.ru/opinion/columns/2015/10/23/614024-aktivnie-grazhdane-
serverah</ref> arguing that through online
votes the website produces a semblance of participation in decision making and creates the
legitimisation of decisions already made by local authorities, while the actual mechanism of
participation including online voting is not transparent and is open to manipulation. An
online media investigation exposed falsification of online decisions, while an opposition local
council member claimed that, ‘Active Citizen is used by the mayor’s office for imitation of
citizens’ participation in decision-making by authorities’<ref>Mazhay, K. and Chesnokov, I. 2015. ‘Fiktivnyi Grazhdanin’, Yod, 2 June,
http://yodnews.ru/2015/06/02/citizen</ref>.

Following the extensive wildfire in Russia in the summer of 2010, and the severe
flooding in Krymsk, South Russia, a number of independent projects proposed
crowdsourcing mechanisms to facilitate horizontal, citizen-based responses to national
emergencies. In 2012, a state-affiliated organisation of emergency responders,
RosSoyuzSpas, proposed developing a website (http://dobrovoletz.rf) as a platform to facilitate
emergency response volunteering. Any citizen interested in volunteering in emergency
response could register with the website. But unlike citizen-based projects, this ‘vertical
crowdsourcing’ platform did not provide data about the specific purposes of activity, and did
not allow to the users to select their form of participation. What it actually created was a
registry of potential volunteers that was controlled by the owners of the platform.
Accordingly, while the official purpose of the platform was supporting citizen engagement in
emergency response, its actual purpose was controlling the potential independent volunteers
through the development of a digital top-down structure<ref name="asmo" />.

State-sponsored platforms can be utilised for [[astroturfing]]: the construction of a façade
of bottom-up participation which is actually concealed activity by a traditional top-down
administration, and often has a paid nature.
Examples include state-sponsored trolling<ref>Lawrence, A. 2015. ‘Massive LiveJournal Troll Network Pushes Pro-Kremlin Narratives’,
Global Voices Online, 22 December, https://globalvoices.org/2015/12/22/massive-
livejournal-troll-network-pushes-pro-kremlin-narratives/</ref> and state-sponsored vigilantism.
For instance, the MediaGvardia website presents itself as an opportunity to participate in
civic internet regulation by finding content which is prohibited according to Russian law (for
instance, uncovering so-called ‘gay propaganda’ such as support groups for Russian LGBT
teenagers). However, the website relies mostly on members of state-sponsored youth
movements. It thus presents a façade of ‘public demand’ for the restriction of internet
freedoms while in reality the ‘activists’ are vertically crowdsourced through state support.

Digital platforms and conventional crowdsourcing are typically considered as tools
that contribute to transparency and accountability, as well to the participation of users as
subjects. But when these tools are used by the state as forms of vertical crowdsourcing,
transparency, accountability and participation become merely symbolic. Indeed, the same
tools can position users as object of control, contributing to decreasing transparency and
accountability and preventing genuine civic participation.
</div>
</div>

==Notes==
<references />

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:38, 17 May 2019
Line 30:		Line 30:
	{\| class="wikitable"		{\| class="wikitable"
	\|-		\|-
	\|style="font-size:1.1em;"\| ‘Vertical crowdsourcing’ refers to the ways in which digital technologies can be harnessed by state institutions to create a semblance of openness and participation, while in		\|style="font-size:1.1em;"\| ‘Vertical crowdsourcing’ refers to the ways in which digital technologies can be harnessed by state institutions to create a semblance of openness and participation, while in practice neutralising citizens’ activity and exerting control over them. ‘Crowdsourcing’ in its regular sense refers to ‘the practice of obtaining information or services by soliciting input from a large number of people, typically via the Internet and often without offering compensation’<ref>Oxford English Dictionary. 2016. Entry on ‘crowdsourcing’ (Oxford: Oxford University Press)</ref>. In ‘vertical crowdsourcing’, state authorities solicit such participation in order to fake or control it.
	practice neutralising citizens’ activity and exerting control over them. ‘Crowdsourcing’ in its regular sense refers to ‘the practice of obtaining information or services by soliciting input
	from a large number of people, typically via the Internet and often without offering compensation’<ref>Oxford English Dictionary. 2016. Entry on ‘crowdsourcing’ (Oxford: Oxford University
	Press)</ref>. In ‘vertical crowdsourcing’, state authorities solicit such participation in order to fake or control it.
	\|}		\|}

Line 99:		Line 96:
	website should lead to action taken by the authorities to resolve the problem. However, such		website should lead to action taken by the authorities to resolve the problem. However, such
	websites can serve as tools that satisfy citizens’ need to complain easily, but with no		websites can serve as tools that satisfy citizens’ need to complain easily, but with no
	consequent action taken by the authorities – or even worse, the faking of action taken.		consequent action taken by the authorities – or even worse, the faking of action taken. For

	For
	example, following the submission of photo of a courtyard blocked by snow to a website run		example, following the submission of photo of a courtyard blocked by snow to a website run
	by the Moscow Mayor's Office, a local official reported that the problem was solved by		by the Moscow Mayor's Office, a local official reported that the problem was solved by
Line 118:		Line 113:
	construction of transparency that supported the legitimacy of the elections<ref name="asmo />.		construction of transparency that supported the legitimacy of the elections<ref name="asmo />.
	While in theory the webcams enabled public scrutiny of electoral conduct to be		While in theory the webcams enabled public scrutiny of electoral conduct to be
	crowdsourced, in practice they obstructed it.		crowdsourced, in practice they obstructed it. Crucially, the platform did not allow any action

	Crucially, the platform did not allow any action
	to be taken once a fraud was detected. It was difficult to retrieve data from the video archive,		to be taken once a fraud was detected. It was difficult to retrieve data from the video archive,
	and the courts that considered cases of election fraud did not have a legal foundation to		and the courts that considered cases of election fraud did not have a legal foundation to
Line 127:		Line 120:
	Another set of digital tools portray citizens’ participation as a horizontal, bottom-up		Another set of digital tools portray citizens’ participation as a horizontal, bottom-up
	action (i.e. regular crowdsourcing), whereas in reality they are controlled and directed from		action (i.e. regular crowdsourcing), whereas in reality they are controlled and directed from
	above (i.e. vertical crowdsourcing). In 2014 the Moscow Mayor's Office introduced a website		above (i.e. vertical crowdsourcing).

			In 2014 the Moscow Mayor's Office introduced a website
	called ‘Active Citizen’ (http://ag.mos.ru) with the ostensible purpose of allowing Moscow		called ‘Active Citizen’ (http://ag.mos.ru) with the ostensible purpose of allowing Moscow
	residents greater participation in decision-making.		residents greater participation in decision-making. But independent experts questioned if the

	But independent experts questioned if the
	website contributes to participation, with some<ref>Babitzky, A. 2015 Aktivnye grazhdane skladirovany na serverah merii, Vedomosti, 23		website contributes to participation, with some<ref>Babitzky, A. 2015 Aktivnye grazhdane skladirovany na serverah merii, Vedomosti, 23
	October, http://www.vedomosti.ru/opinion/columns/2015/10/23/614024-aktivnie-grazhdane-		October, http://www.vedomosti.ru/opinion/columns/2015/10/23/614024-aktivnie-grazhdane-
Line 138:		Line 131:
	legitimisation of decisions already made by local authorities, while the actual mechanism of		legitimisation of decisions already made by local authorities, while the actual mechanism of
	participation including online voting is not transparent and is open to manipulation.		participation including online voting is not transparent and is open to manipulation.
			An online media investigation exposed falsification of online decisions, while an opposition local
	An
	online media investigation exposed falsification of online decisions, while an opposition local
	council member claimed that, ‘Active Citizen is used by the mayor’s office for imitation of		council member claimed that, ‘Active Citizen is used by the mayor’s office for imitation of
	citizens’ participation in decision-making by authorities’<ref>Mazhay, K. and Chesnokov, I. 2015. ‘Fiktivnyi Grazhdanin’, Yod, 2 June,		citizens’ participation in decision-making by authorities’<ref>Mazhay, K. and Chesnokov, I. 2015. ‘Fiktivnyi Grazhdanin’, Yod, 2 June,
Line 157:		Line 148:
	not allow to the users to select their form of participation. What it actually created was a		not allow to the users to select their form of participation. What it actually created was a
	registry of potential volunteers that was controlled by the owners of the platform.		registry of potential volunteers that was controlled by the owners of the platform.

	Accordingly, while the official purpose of the platform was supporting citizen engagement in		Accordingly, while the official purpose of the platform was supporting citizen engagement in
	emergency response, its actual purpose was controlling the potential independent volunteers		emergency response, its actual purpose was controlling the potential independent volunteers

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:36, 17 May 2019
Line 30:		Line 30:
	{\| class="wikitable"		{\| class="wikitable"
	\|-		\|-
	\|style="font-size:1.1em;"\| ‘Vertical crowdsourcing’ refers to the ways in which digital technologies can be		\|style="font-size:1.1em;"\| ‘Vertical crowdsourcing’ refers to the ways in which digital technologies can be harnessed by state institutions to create a semblance of openness and participation, while in
	harnessed by state institutions to create a semblance of openness and participation, while in		practice neutralising citizens’ activity and exerting control over them. ‘Crowdsourcing’ in its regular sense refers to ‘the practice of obtaining information or services by soliciting input
	practice neutralising citizens’ activity and exerting control over them. ‘Crowdsourcing’ in its		from a large number of people, typically via the Internet and often without offering compensation’<ref>Oxford English Dictionary. 2016. Entry on ‘crowdsourcing’ (Oxford: Oxford University
	regular sense refers to ‘the practice of obtaining information or services by soliciting input		Press)</ref>. In ‘vertical crowdsourcing’, state authorities solicit such participation in order to fake or control it.
	from a large number of people, typically via the Internet and often without offering
	compensation’<ref>Oxford English Dictionary. 2016. Entry on ‘crowdsourcing’ (Oxford: Oxford University
	Press)</ref>. In ‘vertical crowdsourcing’, state
	authorities solicit such participation in order to fake or control it.
	\|}		\|}

Line 47:		Line 43:
	surveillance and control over individual users<ref>Morozov, E. 2011. The Net Delusion: The Dark Side of Internet Freedom, New York: Public		surveillance and control over individual users<ref>Morozov, E. 2011. The Net Delusion: The Dark Side of Internet Freedom, New York: Public
	Affairs.</ref><ref>Gunitsky S., Corrupting the Cyber-Commons: Social Media as a Tool of Autocratic Stability,		Affairs.</ref><ref>Gunitsky S., Corrupting the Cyber-Commons: Social Media as a Tool of Autocratic Stability,
	Perspectives on Politics 13.1, March 2015, p.42-54, doi.org/10.1017/S1537592714003120</ref>. The		Perspectives on Politics 13.1, March 2015, p.42-54, doi.org/10.1017/S1537592714003120</ref>.

			The
	ambivalence at the heart of ‘vertical crowdsourcing’ relies on the capacity of digital		ambivalence at the heart of ‘vertical crowdsourcing’ relies on the capacity of digital
	platforms to simultaneously replicate two layers of the relationship between institutions and		platforms to simultaneously replicate two layers of the relationship between institutions and
Line 60:		Line 58:
	two simultaneous roles: subjects taking part in activity directed at specific goals alongside		two simultaneous roles: subjects taking part in activity directed at specific goals alongside
	institutional actors; and objects of institutional actors’ activity that seeks to control and		institutional actors; and objects of institutional actors’ activity that seeks to control and
	govern the users. It is the capacity of information technologies to produce symbolic (i.e. fake)		govern the users.

			It is the capacity of information technologies to produce symbolic (i.e. fake)
	constructions of transparency, accountability and user empowerment that enables their users		constructions of transparency, accountability and user empowerment that enables their users
	to be constituted as subjects and objects at the same time: the digital user is a subject in the		to be constituted as subjects and objects at the same time: the digital user is a subject in the
Line 74:		Line 74:
	the data is not provided in a useable format. Accordingly, while in general open data		the data is not provided in a useable format. Accordingly, while in general open data
	contributes to transparency, providing such data can also be a symbolic act that portrays an		contributes to transparency, providing such data can also be a symbolic act that portrays an
	organisation as transparent, while in reality contributing little to transparency. A second set of		organisation as transparent, while in reality contributing little to transparency.

			A second set of
	tools dealing with transparency and accountability is crowdsourcing platforms that aggregate		tools dealing with transparency and accountability is crowdsourcing platforms that aggregate
	information about problems and promise to resolve the issues reported. In 2011 as a part of		information about problems and promise to resolve the issues reported. In 2011 as a part of
Line 90:		Line 92:
	Construction of Statehood, in “Bits and Atoms Information and Communication Technology		Construction of Statehood, in “Bits and Atoms Information and Communication Technology
	in Areas of Limited Statehood”. Ed.: S. Livingston and G. Walter-Drop, Oxford University		in Areas of Limited Statehood”. Ed.: S. Livingston and G. Walter-Drop, Oxford University
	Press 2013.</ref>. For example, local authorities in many countries		Press 2013.</ref>.

			For example, local authorities in many countries
	use websites in order to allow citizens to submit reports about various type of problems e.g.		use websites in order to allow citizens to submit reports about various type of problems e.g.
	potholes and other infrastructural issues. In principle, the submission of a report to the		potholes and other infrastructural issues. In principle, the submission of a report to the
	website should lead to action taken by the authorities to resolve the problem. However, such		website should lead to action taken by the authorities to resolve the problem. However, such
	websites can serve as tools that satisfy citizens’ need to complain easily, but with no		websites can serve as tools that satisfy citizens’ need to complain easily, but with no
	consequent action taken by the authorities – or even worse, the faking of action taken. For		consequent action taken by the authorities – or even worse, the faking of action taken.

			For
	example, following the submission of photo of a courtyard blocked by snow to a website run		example, following the submission of photo of a courtyard blocked by snow to a website run
	by the Moscow Mayor's Office, a local official reported that the problem was solved by		by the Moscow Mayor's Office, a local official reported that the problem was solved by
Line 105:		Line 111:
	webcams that broadcasted live video streams from 95,000 polling stations in Russia to a		webcams that broadcasted live video streams from 95,000 polling stations in Russia to a
	dedicated platform (http://webvybory2012.ru), where any citizen could follow the voting in every		dedicated platform (http://webvybory2012.ru), where any citizen could follow the voting in every
	part of Russia. The Russian authorities used the project to respond to allegations of electoral		part of Russia.

			The Russian authorities used the project to respond to allegations of electoral
	fraud by claiming that the presidential elections were among the most transparent in		fraud by claiming that the presidential elections were among the most transparent in
	international practice. The project thus enabled the government to create a symbolic		international practice. The project thus enabled the government to create a symbolic
	construction of transparency that supported the legitimacy of the elections<ref name="asmo />.		construction of transparency that supported the legitimacy of the elections<ref name="asmo />.
	While in theory the webcams enabled public scrutiny of electoral conduct to be		While in theory the webcams enabled public scrutiny of electoral conduct to be
	crowdsourced, in practice they obstructed it. Crucially, the platform did not allow any action		crowdsourced, in practice they obstructed it.

			Crucially, the platform did not allow any action
	to be taken once a fraud was detected. It was difficult to retrieve data from the video archive,		to be taken once a fraud was detected. It was difficult to retrieve data from the video archive,
	and the courts that considered cases of election fraud did not have a legal foundation to		and the courts that considered cases of election fraud did not have a legal foundation to
Line 119:		Line 129:
	above (i.e. vertical crowdsourcing). In 2014 the Moscow Mayor's Office introduced a website		above (i.e. vertical crowdsourcing). In 2014 the Moscow Mayor's Office introduced a website
	called ‘Active Citizen’ (http://ag.mos.ru) with the ostensible purpose of allowing Moscow		called ‘Active Citizen’ (http://ag.mos.ru) with the ostensible purpose of allowing Moscow
	residents greater participation in decision-making. But independent experts questioned if the		residents greater participation in decision-making.

			But independent experts questioned if the
	website contributes to participation, with some<ref>Babitzky, A. 2015 Aktivnye grazhdane skladirovany na serverah merii, Vedomosti, 23		website contributes to participation, with some<ref>Babitzky, A. 2015 Aktivnye grazhdane skladirovany na serverah merii, Vedomosti, 23
	October, http://www.vedomosti.ru/opinion/columns/2015/10/23/614024-aktivnie-grazhdane-		October, http://www.vedomosti.ru/opinion/columns/2015/10/23/614024-aktivnie-grazhdane-
Line 125:		Line 137:
	votes the website produces a semblance of participation in decision making and creates the		votes the website produces a semblance of participation in decision making and creates the
	legitimisation of decisions already made by local authorities, while the actual mechanism of		legitimisation of decisions already made by local authorities, while the actual mechanism of
	participation including online voting is not transparent and is open to manipulation. An		participation including online voting is not transparent and is open to manipulation.

			An
	online media investigation exposed falsification of online decisions, while an opposition local		online media investigation exposed falsification of online decisions, while an opposition local
	council member claimed that, ‘Active Citizen is used by the mayor’s office for imitation of		council member claimed that, ‘Active Citizen is used by the mayor’s office for imitation of
Line 134:		Line 148:
	flooding in Krymsk, South Russia, a number of independent projects proposed		flooding in Krymsk, South Russia, a number of independent projects proposed
	crowdsourcing mechanisms to facilitate horizontal, citizen-based responses to national		crowdsourcing mechanisms to facilitate horizontal, citizen-based responses to national
	emergencies. In 2012, a state-affiliated organisation of emergency responders,		emergencies.

			In 2012, a state-affiliated organisation of emergency responders,
	RosSoyuzSpas, proposed developing a website (http://dobrovoletz.rf) as a platform to facilitate		RosSoyuzSpas, proposed developing a website (http://dobrovoletz.rf) as a platform to facilitate
	emergency response volunteering. Any citizen interested in volunteering in emergency		emergency response volunteering. Any citizen interested in volunteering in emergency
Line 141:		Line 157:
	not allow to the users to select their form of participation. What it actually created was a		not allow to the users to select their form of participation. What it actually created was a
	registry of potential volunteers that was controlled by the owners of the platform.		registry of potential volunteers that was controlled by the owners of the platform.

	Accordingly, while the official purpose of the platform was supporting citizen engagement in		Accordingly, while the official purpose of the platform was supporting citizen engagement in
	emergency response, its actual purpose was controlling the potential independent volunteers		emergency response, its actual purpose was controlling the potential independent volunteers
Line 151:		Line 168:
	Global Voices Online, 22 December, https://globalvoices.org/2015/12/22/massive-		Global Voices Online, 22 December, https://globalvoices.org/2015/12/22/massive-
	livejournal-troll-network-pushes-pro-kremlin-narratives/</ref> and state-sponsored vigilantism.		livejournal-troll-network-pushes-pro-kremlin-narratives/</ref> and state-sponsored vigilantism.

	For instance, the MediaGvardia website presents itself as an opportunity to participate in		For instance, the MediaGvardia website presents itself as an opportunity to participate in
	civic internet regulation by finding content which is prohibited according to Russian law (for		civic internet regulation by finding content which is prohibited according to Russian law (for