commbox Digital Transformation

Filter

3313

Sort by:

Direction:

Safer platforms, stronger participation: Mapping gender-based violence online in Syria

Bonn: Deutsche Welle DW Akademie (2026), 57 pp.

"Findings show that Gender-Based Violence Online( GBVO) in Syria is normalized and systemic, not merely isolated incidents, functioning as a mechanism of social control that reinforces patriarchal power and restricts civic participation. It takes overlapping forms, including sexual blackmail, harass ... more

External Link (135)

The People-Centered AI Playbook. Playbook Capsule

Dalberg Data Insights (2026), 44 pp.

"This people-centered playbook [...] is designed to give you the essentials of AI adoption in a quick, accessible format, with core concepts, foundational steps, and key frameworks without overwhelming detail. Built for impact-driven teams in low-resource or non-tech-first contexts, it answers the m ... more

Indic Voice Technologies for an Inclusive Digital India: Toolkit for Developers

Nihar Desai, Sujith P., Harleen Kaur, Dona Mathew, Jyotsna Jayaram, Padmavathi Prasad, Thomas Vallianeth

Bhashini; Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ); FAIR Forward – Artificial Intelligence for All (2026), 70 pp.

"This toolkit sets out a layered, lifecycle-oriented approach to building inclusive and robust speech artificial intelligence (AI) systems. It brings together strategies for diverse and representative data collection, linguistically informed model training, rigorous quality control, and deployment o ... more

External Link (105)

Google Scholar (70)

WorldCat (71)

Ethik der Digitalisierung

Hauke Behrendt

Bielefeld: transcript Verlag (2026), 347 pp.

"Künstliche Intelligenz, Big Data und die zunehmende Vernetzung stellen uns vor zahlreiche Herausforderungen. Hauke Behrendt wirft einen moralphilosophischen Blick auf den digitalen Wandel und diskutiert unter anderem die Risiken algorithmengestützter Prognose- und Entscheidungssysteme in Bezug au ... more

External Link (105)

AlgorithmWatch’s guidelines to use generative AI responsibly

Oliver Marsh, Michele Loi

Berlin: Algorithm Watch (2026)

"Whether you use ChatGPT, Claude or Gemini, Copilot or Perplexity – generative AI poses massive problems: many results are inaccurate and politically problematic, the systems’ energy and water consumption is enormous. At the same time, they have become an integral part of everyday life. Algorith ... more

External Link (78)

Navigating risks and rewards: How South African journalists use AI in the newsroom

Karen Allen, Herman Wasserman, Nande Mbekela

Johannesburg; Stellenbosch: Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung (KAS), Media Programme Sub-Saharan Africa; Centre for Information Integrity in Africa (CINIA) (2026), 33 pp.

"This study demonstrates impressively how widely AI is already used in South African newsrooms – often, however, without systematic training, without editorial guidelines, and without tools adapted to African languages and contexts. The interviews make it clear that journalists stand between curio ... more

External Link (59)

Encyclical Letter Magnifica Humanitas of His Holiness Pope Leo XIV on Safeguarding the Human Person in the Time of Artificial Intelligence

Leo XIV (Pope)

Vatican City: Holy See (2026)

"Divided into five chapters, Magnifica humanitas has an underlying premise: technology is not “a force antagonistic to humanity” (paragraph 4), nor is it “inherently evil” (9). However, “technology is never neutral, because it takes on the characteristics of those who devise, finance, regu ... late, and use it. Therefore, Pope Leo XIV appeals for people to build “for the common good” and to “remain human,” following a courageous mentality of shared responsibility and communion, so that the world “will come to recognize the human heart as the place where God desires to dwell” (16). [...] An ethical code for AI: The third chapter—Technology and Dominance. The Grandeur of Humanity in Light of the Promises of AI stresses the need to approach artificial intelligence with vigilance. Pope Leo warns about the “technocratic paradigm” already denounced by Pope Francis and how it can require that every choice be dictated exclusively by measuring efficiency and profits (92). On the contrary, the most powerful technology is not necessarily the best. AI can imitate and simulate the person, but it does not possess a moral conscience, empathy, or affective, relational or spiritual capabilities. The Pope urges clarity about responsibilities and accountability at every stage of the development process, focusing on adequate AI policies and legal frameworks, independent oversight, and user education. Above all, Pope Leo calls for an ethical code subject to shared standards of social justice, because “a more moral AI is not enough if that morality is determined by a few” (107). Nor, he adds, should the environmental impact of new technologies be overlooked, since they require large quantities of energy and water, affecting Creation (101). Disarming AI: AI must be “disarmed,” Pope Leo XIV continues, in order to free it from the mentality of military, economic, and cognitive competition. “To disarm means discrediting the assumption that technical power automatically confers the right to govern,” he says. “To disarm does not mean rejecting technology, but preventing it from dominating humanity” (110). He devotes ample space to a critique of transhumanism and posthumanism, which interpret progress as the overcoming of human limits. Instead, limitations are not defects to be eliminated, but a constitutive dimension of the human person, because it is in fragility and finitude that relationship and openness to God and to others mature. He says we must remember that “humanity flourishes not despite limitations, but often through them” (118). Technological progress without regression of the heart: Pursuing technological innovation at the expense of eliminating human limitations, he says, would cause an anthropological regression. “Humanity—in all its grandeur and woundedness—must never be replaced or surpassed,” he says. Technology can alleviate humanity’s sufferings and open new possibilities, but it must not deny the essence of humanity, which is our “capacity for relationship and love” (126). In the face of AI, says the Pope, “the true alternative is not between enthusiasm and fear, but between two paths of development: a progress that serves individuals and peoples, or a progress that subjects them to the mentality of power” (129). An ecology of communication and the centrality of schools: In the fourth chapter—Safeguarding Humanity at a Time of Transformation. Truth, Work, Freedom—the Pope calls for an “ecology of communication” based on truth. He urges transparency in how content is selected, protection of personal data, serious journalism founded on argumentation and verification, a new awareness in the “proper and critical” use of digital tools, and the integration of different forms of knowledge. The Church must also embody transparent and honest communication, especially in cases of injustice and abuse. The Pope also appeals for a renewed educational alliance, so that the “desire to ask questions” may not be extinguished in young people by perfect machines that make human thought seem useless (140). Pope Leo XIV, therefore, calls for renewed attention to schools as places where people learn to “seek and love the truth” (147). The dignity of work: In the “fourth industrial revolution” represented by the digital transition, the Pope emphasizes the importance of protecting the dignity of work by designing systems centered on the person and not only on performance. “The ‘new ways’ of working are not necessarily better,” he writes, “while AI promises to boost productivity by taking over mundane tasks, it frequently forces workers to adapt to the speed and demands of machines, rather than machines being designed to support those who work” (150). Technology can certainly free human beings from burdensome or repetitive tasks, but it must not lead to unemployment in the name of reducing costs and increasing profit. In this regard, the Pope expresses his hopes for a renewal of labor organizations (155). Peace and development: Pope Leo then notes the need to move beyond GDP as the measure of a country’s level of development, focusing instead on the dignity of work, shared prosperity, the reduction of inequalities, and environmental protection. Finance, he says, must focus on the development, creation, and evolution of work (159-160). Following in the footsteps of Pope St. Paul VI, the encyclical underscores the interdependence between peace and development. It calls for international cooperation capable of defining shared strategies, especially in favor of the most vulnerable countries and groups, because prosperity contributes to peace “only if it is widespread, inclusive, and sustainable” (163). The family, “primary social good”: The Pope upholds the role of the family, saying it is founded on the stable union between a man and a woman. The family is a “primary social good” and the “fundamental and irreplaceable cell of every community organization” (165), which must be supported, including through labor policies that favor stability and humane rhythms, so as to protect society’s ability to “build the future.” ‘Architecture of visibility’ and risks for freedom: Pope Leo XIV then discusses the theme of human freedom in an age when digital platforms are designed to capture users’ time and exploit their vulnerabilities. He reiterates the need to strengthen each person’s interior freedom, while also confronting the risk of social control arising from the mass collection of data and the use of algorithmic systems. Profiling, predicting, and directing behavior, he says, is “a new form of power” (171) that risks discriminating against the weakest. The Pope particularly criticizes the “architecture of visibility,” which amplifies only what is visible and shapes opinions. New forms of slavery and colonialism: AI also generates new forms of slavery, such as that of the “scarred, injured, and worn down” bodies (173) of those who work in the extraction of the “rare earth elements” needed for technology. Therefore, the Pope upholds the importance of combating new forms of slavery as another “decisive test for ethical discernment” in the digital transformation. Pope Leo XIV stresses that “the Church renews her firm condemnation of every form of slavery, trafficking, and commodification of persons” and he underscores that to not react or to tolerate grave violations of human dignity means becoming accomplices to them. At the same time, the Pope “sincerely asks forgiveness” for the delay with which the Church in the past condemned “the scourge of slavery” (174-176). The encyclical also refers to the vital information—for example, on health and demographics—used to guide economic strategies. He calls this a new face of colonialism that turns personal lives into exploitable information, making the digital environment a “space of exploitation” (178-179). Overcoming ‘just war’ theory: In the fifth chapter—The Culture of Power and the Civilization of Love—Pope Leo XIV turns his gaze to war, saying “the digital revolution is changing the nature of conflict.” The Pope calls for an ethical approach, without which decisions about the life and death of persons will become increasingly impersonal due to a use of force regarded as an “immediate and viable option” (182-183). At the root of all this is a “culture of power” that normalizes war and rehabilitates it as an “instrument of international politics,” favoring rearmament. Today, he says, public opinion is burdened by polarizing media narratives, as well as by “a disconcerting loss of historical memory,” which leaves people without a long-term vision (191). Consequently, he says, peace today is no longer understood as a task to be undertaken, but as an interval between conflicts. For this reason, Pope Leo XIV reiterates that—while preserving the right to legitimate defense in the strictest sense—the theory of “just war” must be overcome, and dialogue, diplomacy, and forgiveness must instead be promoted (192). Algorithms do not make war morally acceptable: Pope Leo expresses criticism of the growth in the arms industry, the nuclear arms race, and the emergence of new armed actors—including jihadist groups—who aim to perpetuate conflicts as a source of power and profit. He also warns against the use of weapons linked to AI, because “there is no algorithm that can make war morally acceptable.” The Pope writes, “AI does not remove the intrinsic inhumanity of conflict; indeed, it can only bring about conflict more quickly and render it more impersonal, lowering the threshold for resorting to violence, transforming defense into threat prediction and thus reducing victims to data. In this way, it will accustom us to the idea that violence is inevitable and needs only to be optimized.” The Pope urges strict ethical limits, which are shared at the international level and based on personal responsibility and the protection of civilians. “Any technology that facilitates attacks without seeing the face of human beings lowers the moral threshold of conflict” (199). Crisis of multilateralism: The culture of power also emerges from the crisis of multilateralism and the emergence of “a disorderly and conflict-ridden multipolarism” with a prevailing sense of mistrust (201). The Pope laments that the rule of law has been replaced by the law of the strongest, while the logic of power prevails over peace building and institutions established to safeguard the common destiny of peoples have now been weakened. In this regard, the Pope hopes for “profound reforms” of the UN that can overcome the current crisis of values in favor of the common good (226). An irresponsible Realpolitik: The encyclical notes that today “hybrid” wars are fought “also on the economic, financial and cyber fronts, where disinformation and campaigns that feed people’s fears are used to manipulate public opinion” so that increases in military expenditures are seen as the “only response” to an uncertain future. But all of this is only a “false realism”, an irresponsible Realpolitik that sows in people’s consciences and cultures a resignation to an unavoidable war and describes peace as a utopia (204-205). He notes that there is the possibility that some “may consider armed conflict as an effective way of diverting attention from domestic problems and a cynical tool for managing difficulties (208). The civilization of love: Christians, says Pope Leo, are called to respond to the culture of power by building “the civilization of love” and by choosing whether to feed the logic of force or safeguard peace. He recalls the memory of the saints, “righteous people and the oft-forgotten peacemakers, show us that grace does not magically eliminate conflict, but instead it inspires active resistance to evil and an astonishing creativity in doing good” (211). The Pope indicates five paths of responsibility, which include disarming words by speaking the truth; building peace in justice; adopting the perspective of victims by taking a stand, because there are conflicts in which “it is unjust to remain neutral”; cultivating “a healthy realism” that seeks practicable paths of peace through deeds, not only words. Importance of interreligious dialogue: Finally, relaunching dialogue by moving from a culture of power to a culture of negotiation is highlighted. And of decisive importance is “interreligious dialogue”, being bearers of a message of peace. He writes that “those who use the name of God to legitimize terrorism, violence or war betray his true nature, for to fight in the name of religion means attacking religion itself” (223). The diplomacy of the Holy See, he notes, “adopts the Gospel’s principle of mercy as a concrete criterion for political action.” And from this, the exhortation to prayer, since peace comes above all from God (227-228)." (https://www.vaticannews.va/en/pope/news/2026-05/pope-leo-xiv-encyclical-magnifica-humanitas-ai.html) more

External Link (23)

Building an Open and Responsible Voice Technology Ecosystem: Policy Recommendations for Digital Inclusion in India

Bhashini; Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ); FAIR Forward – Artificial Intelligence for All (2026), 57 pp.

"This report examines key barriers to building open and responsible speech systems in India—from data collection and model development to infrastructure and responsible practices. It proposes policy recommendations and governance mechanisms to support an innovative and equitable voice-technology e ... cosystem. Key Recommendations: A. TREATING FOUNDATIONAL DATASETS AS PUBLIC GOODS: Foundational datasets for speech technologies are large, reusable corpora of audio, text, and metadata. They are curated to support a wide array of downstream applications, including automatic speech recognition (ASR), text-to-speech (TTS), and speech translation. Making foundational datasets available as digital public goods addresses market failures in voice-technology ecosystems and promotes local economic innovation. The report identifies challenges arising from the linguistic diversity and nuance of Indian languages, infrastructural barriers, the absence of common data standards that create governance gaps, and unresolved intellectual property and privacy issues. Policy recommendations for building foundational language datasets include clarifying and revisiting existing laws to enable the use of publicly available material, ensuring sustainable investments supported by government and blended finance techniques, and instituting strong governance systems with shared standards, coordinated repositories, and independent quality assurance. B. BUILDING OPEN AND REPRESENTATIVE MODELS: India’s success in inclusive voice technologies depends on whether speech systems perform well across the country’s linguistic and social diversity. Today, limited openly available datasets, inadequate evaluation benchmarks, and uneven access to compute have resulted in models that perform inconsistently across languages, accents, and demographic groups, especially those from rural, low-resource, or marginalised communities. Strengthening India’s ecosystem requires further investment in data, evaluation, and infrastructure. Benchmarking should be built around open evaluation datasets and transparent leaderboards providing common baselines for developers, improving procurement standards, and helping assess performance across diverse languages and speaker groups. On the infrastructure side, platforms such as Bhashini, ULCA, and AI Kosh offer strong foundations although effective operation hinges on sustained governance, clear access protocols, and long-term funding models. C. INSTITUTIONALISING SUSTAINABLE OPEN-SOURCE INFRASTRUCTURE: Speech datasets place far greater demands on storage, bandwidth, and compute than text data, making the financing and governance of longterm hosting a central challenge for India’s voice-tech ecosystem. A fragmented licensing landscape adds further uncertainty: overlapping or incompatible terms across data, code, model weights, and evaluation sets impose substantial compliance burdens on small actors, while enforcement gaps allow misuse with little recourse. Sustaining open, equitable development requires treating dataset hosting as durable public digital infrastructure rather than grant-based, project-specific assets. By international standards, India’s emerging platforms, such as AI Kosh, provide a remarkable foundation. However, they require longterm funding, transparent governance, and clear access pathways for non-government contributors. Collaborative stewardship models, such as the Mozilla Data Collective, can help establish shared quality norms and consistent metadata conventions. D. STRENGTHENING RESPONSIBLE DEPLOYMENT: Deploying speech technologies responsibly requires more than high-performance models; it depends on safe systems, contextually appropriate use, and clear accountability. Existing data practices lack value-sharing mechanisms, leaving communities and researchers without recognition or benefitsharing, even as their contributions fuel commercial products. Risks of misuse, including voice cloning, phishing, and deepfake-driven misinformation, are rising, and unintended harms like linguistic exclusion, biased performance across accents and genders, and the erosion of regional language identities remain widespread. Addressing these gaps requires structural guardrails that embed fairness, transparency, and accountability into deployment workflows. Preventing misuse demands a combination of technical safeguards, stronger legal pathways, and widespread public literacy efforts to help users recognise risks and exercise their rights. The report argues that a strong ecosystem requires more than innovation funding. Building open-source foundations—including language datasets, standards, collection protocols and responsible AI frameworks—promotes demand-driven local innovation. It is therefore essential that the state plays an active, shaping role, much as it has in the development of digital public infrastructure. In the context of voice technology, this involves both investing in commercially viable languages and sustaining low-resource languages that are vital for inclusion but unlikely to attract private capital. Open-source assets can reduce costs for the public and private sector alike. However, they demand long-term planning and financing for hosting, maintenance, and updates. These assets can be supported through blended-finance models that pool public, philanthropic, and commercial resources. Emerging national initiatives, such as the proposed AI marketplaces, can further structure participation, transparency, and value-sharing across data, annotation, and deployable models." (Executive summary, pages 9-11) more

Google Scholar (38)

WorldCat (40)

From Rural Village to Smart Village: Digital Connectivity for Development

Heather E. Hudson

Routledge (2026), 192 pp.

"This book investigates how the rise of information and communications technologies is transforming life for Indigenous communities and those living in rural and developing areas. The global reach of the internet and the proliferation of mobile phones, broadband and social media have created an inte ... more

External Link (42)

Preserving Human Voices and Faces. Message of his Holiness Pope Leo XIV for the 60th World Day of Social Communication

Leo XIV (Pope)

Vatican City: Holy See, January 24 (2026)

"The task laid before us is not to stop digital innovation, but rather to guide it and to be aware of its ambivalent nature. It is up to each of us to raise our voice in defense of human persons, so that we can truly assimilate these tools as allies. This alliance is possible, but needs to be based ... on three pillars: responsibility, cooperation and education. First of all, responsibility. Depending on the role we play, responsibility can be understood as honesty, transparency, courage, farsightedness, the duty of sharing knowledge or the right to be informed. As a general principle, however, no one can elude personal responsibility for the future we are building. For those at the helm of online platforms, this means ensuring that their business strategies are not guided solely by the criterion of profit maximization, but also by a forward-looking vision that considers the common good, just as each of them cares for the well-being of their own children. The creators and developers of AI models are invited to practice transparency and socially responsibility in regard to the design principles and moderation systems underlying their algorithms and the models they develop, in order to promote informed consent on the part of users. The same responsibility is also required of national legislators and supranational regulators, whose task it is to ensure respect for human dignity. Appropriate regulation can protect individuals from forming emotional attachments to chatbots and curb the spread of false, manipulative or misleading content, safeguarding the integrity of information as opposed to its deceptive simulation. [...] We are all called upon to cooperate. No sector can tackle the challenge of steering digital innovation and AI governance alone. Safeguards must therefore be put in place. All stakeholders — from the tech industry to legislators, from creative companies to academia, from artists to journalists and educators — must be involved in building and implementing informed and responsible digital citizenship. Education aims to do precisely this: To increase our personal ability to think critically; evaluate whether our sources are trustworthy and the possible interests behind selecting the information we have access to; to understand the psychological mechanisms involved; and to enable our families, communities and associations to develop practical criteria for a healthier and more responsible culture of communication. For this reason, it is increasingly urgent to introduce media, information and AI literacy into education systems at all levels, as already promoted by some civil institutions. As Catholics, we can and must contribute to this effort, so that individuals — especially young people — can acquire critical thinking skills and grow in freedom of spirit. This literacy should also be integrated into broader lifelong learning initiatives, reaching out to older adults and marginalized members of society, who often feel excluded and powerless in the face of rapid technological change. Media, information and AI literacy will help individuals avoid conforming to the anthropomorphizing tendencies of AI systems, and enable them to treat these systems as tools and always employ external validation of the sources provided by AI systems — which could be inaccurate or incorrect. Literacy will also allow for better privacy and data protection through increased awareness of security parameters and complaint options." (https://www.comunicazione.va/en/giornata-mondiale-comunicazioni-sociali/gmcs-2026/gmcs-2026-messaggio.html) more

External Link (80)

Google Scholar (80)

WorldCat (80)

Foundations in Cyber-Ethnography: A Cross-Cultural Approach

Erica Zimmerman, Clementine K. Fujimura (eds.)

New York: Bloomsbury Academic (2026), x, 253 pp.

"Contributors to this volume contend that in the realm of research on human society, online and digital communication can no longer be relegated to a separate cyber space and should instead be considered in equal part by integrating cyber-ethnographic methods. Coming at a critical time where student ... more

External Link (90)

Promoting and advancing human rights in global AI ecosystems: The need for a comprehensive framework under international law

Alexander Kriebitz, Caitlin C. Corrigan (eds.)

Globethics Foundation; Responsible AI Network – Africa (RAIN-Africa) (2026), 33 pp.

"In response to far-reaching societal impacts of AI, policymakers are increasingly adopting a human rights lens for AI governance. However, the regulatory landscape remains fragmented and characterized by Western led initiatives as well as inconsistent enforcement. To address these limitations, a un ... ified and binding international framework is urgently needed. The proposed Convention on AI, Data, and Human Rights (drafted as the “Munich Convention on AI, Data, and Human Rights”) is an initiative toward such a framework. Developed with contributions from over 50 global experts, it proposes an international convention to align AI governance with human rights principles. This whitepaper explores the underlying rationale behind the convention, emphasizing its alignment with the norms and principles articulated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the UN Charter. It examines the relevance of safeguards against AI’s misuse in facilitating human rights violations, with particular focus on protecting underrepresented or marginalized groups, including indigenous peoples, and addressing collective rights. It furthermore points to the necessity to codify rights that empower individuals to opt out, be forgotten, seek explanations, and access remedies to maintain adequate human rights standards in the context of AI. The urgency to act arises from the escalating impact of AI and the rapid pace of political and technological advancements. The UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) is particularly well poised to play a leading role in initiating global discussions on a binding convention for AI governance, grounded in human rights principles. Drawing on its established mandate to uphold human rights globally, the UNHRC has a record of successfully embedding human rights principles into international frameworks, as demonstrated by its endorsement of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights and the recognition of the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment. Through dedicated action around promoting a convention on AI and human rights, the UNHRC can foster international consensus and proactively shape the future of AI in a manner that prioritizes the values and principles enshrined in the key documents of international human rights law." (Executive summary) more

Google Scholar (137)

WorldCat (118)

Regulating New Media in Africa: Politics, Law and Governance

Vincent Obia, Sulayman Bah, Yemisi Akinbobola, Oliver Carter (eds.)

Intellect (2026), 242 pp.

"A collection of research on digital media regulatory interventions across Africa, an area that has largely been overlooked in the literature. It considers a range of perspectives from scholars within and outside Africa on the subject, providing a compendium on digital media regulation on the contin ... more

External Link (51)

Google Scholar (38)

WorldCat (41)

AI Companions Reduce Loneliness

Julian De Freitas, Zeliha Oğuz-Uğuralp, Ahmet Kaan Uğuralp, Stefano Puntoni

Journal of Consumer Research, volume 52, issue 6 (2026), pp. 1126–1148

"Chatbots are now able to engage in sophisticated conversations with consumers in the domain of relationships, providing a potential coping solution to widescale societal loneliness. Behavioral research provides little insight into whether these applications (apps) are effective at alleviating lonel ... more

External Link (136)

Google Scholar (102)

WorldCat (102)

Governing Digital China

Daniela Stockmann, Ting Luo

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (2026), xx, 273 pp.

"China's approach to digital governance has gained global influence, often evoking Orwellian 'Big Brother' comparisons. Governing Digital China challenges this perception, arguing that China's approach is radically different in practice. This book explores the logic of popular corporatism, highlight ... more

External Link (73)

Relational Futures: Indigenous Sovereignty and the Governance of Artificial Intelligence (AI)

Bronwyn Carlson, Tamika Worrell

Macquarie University (2026), 30 pp.

"Artificial intelligence must be governed as a relational and institutional force, not simply a technical system. Effective policy requires Indigenous leadership, enforceable standards, and a commitment to sovereignty, accountability, and community wellbeing. Failure to act risks embedding inequalit ... more

External Link (32)

Google Scholar (34)

WorldCat (33)

The Routledge Companion to Digital Media and Democracy

Zizi Papacharissi (ed.)

New York; London: Routledge (2026), xxii, 475 pp.

"A comprehensive collection that offers an overview of digital technologies and democratic practice, this Companion explores the topic of digital media and democracy from a historically rich and socio-culturally broad perspective. Edited by one of the foremost leaders in the field, Zizi Papacharissi ... more

External Link (39)

Invisible Workers, Visible Harms: Perils and Precarities of AI Labour

Aapti Institute

Bonn: Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) (2026), 40 pp.

"Across South Asia, Southeast Asia, and Sub-Saharan Africa, data workers operate within fragmented and opaque supply chains characterised by informal employment arrangements, limited social protections, and a profound imbalance of power between workers, vendors, and the global technology firms that ... more

Download (48)

Reinventing Humanitarian Aid Procurement for the Age of AI

Giulio Coppi

Access Now (2026), 59 pp.

"Our research reveals that the organisational use of AI and algorithmic systems often happens through a process of unstructured integration rather than formal adoption. More precisely, cloud-based, algorithmic-enhanced functionalities and processes are making their way into humanitarian entitiesʼ t ... ech stack through updates and add-ons to preexisting products, slowly but inexorably seeping into most internal systems. A price-based procurement process designed around the static idea of digital asset purchase is inadequate to ensure adequate protection from hyperdynamic tech product development. This is especially evident looking at the growing power imbalances between private actors and nonprofits, and among nonprofits themselves. Digital technology is often heralded as key to democratise and equalise the playing field between humanitarian actors, by finally unlocking local actorsʼ access to resources traditionally reserved for international entities. But emerging trends seem to disprove such claims. The lack of adequate legal frameworks and safeguards, lagging investments in humanitarian funding for information and communication technology (ICT) resources and connectivity, and inadequate dedicated funding for digital programmes are thwarting these opportunities. More broadly, virtuous and responsible procurement practices are proving inadequate for protecting human rights alone, as tech companiesʼ commitments to human rights are replaced by defence-oriented pitches and the size of their human rights teams keeps shrinking. Preexisting digital divides are enhanced by several deep and subtle changes in traditional tech business models, resulting from the gradual cloudification of most common digital systems and the fast-paced, distributed nature of modern digital development. Even more worryingly, we are seeing new forms of digital divide well beyond the traditional gaps in digital capacity between local and small non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and international non-governmental organisations (INGOs) or UN entities. Cloud-based companiesʼ takeover of generic coordination platforms creates a constantly broadening chasm between the few organisations that are digitally mature, those who are barely retrofitting their processes to fit the new reality, and the broad majority forced to access the promised land of digital humanitarianism through the predatory gates of algorithmic and cloud servicesʼ free tech licensing. Our findings highlight how organisation-led digital development, building on open-source systems (despite some “openwashing” practices) and trusted external providers, remains the best option for risk reduction when it comes to algorithmic systems. However, in the short to medium term, this might not be financially and technically feasible for the majority of humanitarian actors, especially considering the catastrophic funding environment. To fill this gap, we propose a toolkit in an appendix to this report. This is a foundational governance model for transforming digital procurement from a transactional into a strategic business function, integrated across key organisational departments. By doing so, protection-mandated aid groups could move from running purchase-centred processes, to adopting a dynamic, proactive, and rights-based approach to tech management. This report also contains a set of recommendations for states and donors, the humanitarian community, tech companies, local aid actors and communities, research centres, and cyber experts." (Executive summary, pages 2-3) more

External Link (90)

How Russia Is Reshaping Command and Control for AI-Enabled Warfare

Kateryna Bondar

Washington, DC: Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) (2026), 20 pp.

"This paper examines how Russia is transforming its command and control (C2) architecture under wartime pressure, how these changes shape the country’s incremental move toward battlefield-required software solutions, and what lessons U.S. policymakers can learn from Russia’s experiences. Focusin ... g on both strategic ambitions and battlefield practice, the takeaways below summarize how automated C2 systems, unmanned platform management software, and emerging AI applications are being developed, adapted, and scaled within Russia’s military ecosystem. 1. Russia is no longer prioritizing the construction of a single, comprehensive automated C2 architecture comparable to Western joint concepts; instead, it is reallocating effort toward tactical, task-specific software, driven by battlefield necessity. Prolonged, high-intensity combat in Ukraine exposed the limits of centralized, system-wide C2 modernization and elevated the importance of accelerating the tactical kill chain. The emergence of systems such as the “Svod” Tactical Situational Awareness Complex and other integrated reconnaissance-strike tools reflects a pragmatic shift in which operational control of unmanned systems and real-time battlefield management now deliver greater military value than achieving end-to-end C2 integration. 2. Because unmanned systems now conduct up to 80 percent of Russian fire missions, the center of gravity in C2 innovation has shifted toward software that manages drones and integrates them with artillery and other fire units. Civilian engineers and volunteer developers have focused on closing this gap by building tools that provide situational awareness, automate fire correction, and link unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) operators directly to firing units. Russia’s “Glaz/Groza” software complex demonstrates this trend, functioning as a unified reconnaissance-strike workflow that converts drone footage into targeting data and compresses the time from detection to impact from hours to minutes. 3. The Russian military assesses its AI capabilities for visual and audio data processing as relatively mature, placing computer vision, sensor fusion, and signal analysis at technology readiness level (TRL) 6–9, while natural-language processing remains at an early, experimental stage, TRL 1–3. This disparity reflects a deliberate prioritization of AI applications that deliver immediate battlefield utility—such as target recognition, guidance, and autonomous terminal functions for unmanned systems—and where abundant data and combat validation are available. By contrast, text analysis AI, which underpins document processing and higher-level C2 decision support, remains constrained by immature architectures, limited certified software, and organizational barriers, slowing progress toward fully AI-enabled command workflows. 4. Within Russian C2 systems, AI is primarily envisioned as a support function rather than a replacement for human decisionmaking. Russian military doctrine assigns AI two core roles: enhancing the processing and interpretation of sensor data and providing predictive decision support through forecasting, scenario generation, and recommendations for commanders. Across strategic and tactical levels, AI is intended to augment situational awareness and analytical capacity, while formal authority and responsibility for decisions remain firmly with human commanders. 5. Russia began its C2 digitalization effort by building a dense layer of standards governing terminology, system architecture, hardware-software integration, and information management. This standardization drive, coupled with the transition to the domestically controlled Astra Linux operating system, reflects an attempt to create a unified technical foundation capable of supporting data integration, interoperability, and future AI insertion across the command hierarchy. While this framework provides structural coherence, it has not, on its own, resolved deeper institutional and methodological constraints that continue to limit system-wide C2 integration. 6. To enable AI-driven tactical software, the Russian military launched a systematic data collection effort in 2025 focused on unmanned operations and strike outcomes. The emerging data infrastructure aggregates UAS video feeds, operator telemetry, strike effects, and individual pilot performance metrics, each linked to unique personal identifiers. These datasets serve multiple functions simultaneously: operational analysis, training evaluation, and the creation of labeled data for AI model development, establishing a feedback loop that ties battlefield performance directly to software refinement. 7. Despite efforts to reduce dependence on foreign commercial technologies, Russia’s military AI development remains heavily reliant on open-weight models and civilian software ecosystems. The transition from tools such as AlpineQuest and Discord toward domestic alternatives like ZOV Maps and Astra-based platforms reflects a push for security and sovereignty at the application layer. At the same time, Russian developers actively adapt open-weight and commercially available AI models, including Mistral, Qwen, LLaMA, YOLO, and related architectures, for military use, embedding them into on-premise, tightly controlled environments. This hybrid approach allows Russia to mitigate sanctions and accelerate AI adoption without building foundational models from scratch." (Executive summary) more