TFGL2021 - S2 - Ep4 - Vacuous Wastelands

Welcome to this episode of the Tech For Good Live podcast.

Joining host Bex on the show this week we have TFGL team members Fay Schofield and Ankur Asthana.

And our special guest is Ross McCulloch, Director of Third Sector Lab who specialise in digital strategy & service design for charities.

Transcript

Bex: Hello to our podcast listeners, my friends, my mom and that one enemy I have. Welcome back to another episode of the Tech for Good Live podcast. I'm a little tired today because there was a moorhen screaming outside my bedroom window since 3am and I'm a vegetarian, so unfortunately, this limits the action I can take. He still lives taunting me from across the way. Still, I'll try and stay on my game. If you hear the faint sounds of snoring during the podcast, try to ignore it. We've got a lot to talk about today, including the planned Instagram for children's spin off seems to have been scrapped by Facebook. That's good. But surprising news because Instagram has always been indifferent about the harm that they caused kids. So let's see what happens there. We'll be talking about big tech and the incoming antitrust action. That sounds incredibly boring, but we'll try and keep it fun. We'll be talking about a really concerning innovation in prison tech. All that and more, coming up.

Joining me today we have fake news, Fay Schofield. Fay lives down south in the UK these days and is surrounded by a variety of delightful farmyard creatures: sheep, lambs, cows, littler cows. My question Fay is if you had to be a farmyard animal, which would it be?

Fay: An alpaca. I don't have any alpacas but I'd be one because they've just got a lot of sass. And I like that. And I don't have a lot of sass as a person, so maybe I could have sass as a farmyard animal.

Bex: That's a great answer [laughs] Well done Fay. We have Ankur back on the podcast. You may guess it from his accent but Ankur is in the US battling the time zones to feature on the podcast. Same question as Fay.

Ankur: Hello. I think I would probably be a farmyard dog. One of those like Border Collies or something. I was trying to think of the animals that don't get killed on a farm and there weren't that many [laughs] so I have to go with the farm dog.

Bex: And me. I'm here. I'm Bex. So I'll be your host today. And I'm tasked with keeping this podcast from hurtling off course. And if I had to be a farmyard animal, I think I'd go with Ankur’s plan and probably be a horse because I don't think people eat those. So I figured my life expectancy would increase. Also those little horses, they're awesome and they seem to have a great time. We also have a guest with us today. Ross McCulloch is on the podcast. Ross is Director of Third Sector Lab doing digital strategy and service design for charities. Hello, Ross.

Ross: Hello. Don't ask me about the farmyard animal because I just spent the last two minutes in panic there, going what will I be, what I will be. And then an existential thing about polar bears and sheep because they have a nice life and then they're killed. I don't know if that's a better thing to be honest. Maybe that's better. I'll just be a sheep.

Fay: I like that. I mean, the sheep are cool. I like sheep. I never used to like sheep but now I live on a sheep farm so I kind of have to like sheep. Plus as well if we're thinking about Babe, which is the best film of all time for farmyard animal references, the sheep come out victorious in the end. 

Ross: I’ll be a sheep then. There's your answer. 

Bex: Has anyone been in a weird interview situation where they've asked you what animal you want to be as a descriptor of your personality and that becomes incredibly stressful.

Fay: It is so stressful.

Bex: I just, everyone always says cat cuz they're like, edgy and curious and you're like, oh, shut up.

Fay: I just go with bird because I'm like, I like flying. I hate flying. I hate flying. Can't stand flying. It's awful. But bird’s an easy answer. I'm just going to go alpaca next time. That's going to be my answer for everything. Any future interview question, alpaca anything.

Bex: Ross back to the topic of the podcast. Tell us a little bit about what you do at Third Sector Lab.

Ross: Do you know, I chastised a bunch of chief execs this morning for not having an elevator pitch and as soon as I said this, I was like, I can't really explain what I do very well either. So it's very rich coming from me. So I've been working in charity digital for over ten years. So I used to be Head of Comms with a national charity. And probably more of these days working on helping charities get to grips with digital for processes and services, is the main thing that I do these days. I’ve been doing some really interesting work with people like Catalyst and SCVO to think about how you do that at scale, which has been, which has been great. So yeah, I'm very fortunate that I really like my job and I've been reflecting on that recently, actually about how many crap jobs I've had. I watched a film. And it was like this guy was like, the pinnacle of how you could have a bad job and it was a call centre job selling books to people over the phone and I have actually had that job. I had that job for two weeks before I quit. I was selling books over the telephone, cold calling, which is the most bizarre thing you could ever do. I don't know if that explains what I do. It explains what I don't do. I don’t sell books over the phone to people.

Bex: That always reminds me of the Bill Bailey sketch where he was a door to door salesman selling doors. And he'd be like, knock knock, would you like, Oh, no, wait, you already have one. And yeah, sales is a weird one. I'm glad you enjoy your job. I enjoy my job. We all work for charities here, so I think we have that in common and almost as agencies as well. So we don't work within charities at the minute, but I think it's super rewarding working for charities because like, yeah, you're not just selling books to people. Or even if you work in the web industry, like you think it's cool but actually, you're just building like an insurance company's website most of the time. And it's pants. So at least with charities, there's a cause that you can care about, right?

Fay: Yeah. Whoo. I don't know if you are expecting audience participation. 

Ross: Yeah. Love it. 

Fay: I thought I’d lean in and not leave you hanging.

Ross: So my friend works in digital as well and one of these jobs was like, lead based for like a blind company. And like all he's doing Monday to Friday, nine to five is optimising sales funnels, so that people will buy blinds. And like, I could work with the worst charity in the world and it would still be infinitely more rewarding and exciting than that. Because I mean, I don't know how it could get less rewarding. He’s thankfully got a new job, so I'm very happy for him.

Bex: Awesome. On to Stat of the Week. So 35 childrens and consumer groups call for Instagram for children, so this is for people under 13, to be scrapped. Which sounds like a good thing. Right? fate? Do you want to tell us a little bit more about this? 

Fay: Oh, yeah, this is mad. This is mad. Again, it's social media being made kid friendly. And I'm doing the rabbit ears sign that nobody can see because it's a podcast. But never mind. So they've wanted to create this separate children's app for years. But obviously, legislators, parents, anybody in their right mind have been complaining about this, just because it could be so dangerous for kids. We know this, we've seen it is rolled out a lot of the time. And what else have they been saying it's they want to, they wanted to kind of roll this out to underaged users as a way to kind of protect them from sexual predators and bullying. They've kind of come out and said, so a spokesperson for Facebook said, you know, the reality is kids are online, they want to connect with their friends and their family, have fun and learn and we want to help them do that in a way that is safe and age appropriate. But yeah, and quite rightly so this coalition, which includes lots of different organisations have come out and just called for it to be scrapped. It's just wading into a really, really dangerous area for kids. Obviously, as well, they've sort of said that 10 to 12 year olds who do have Instagram accounts, because obviously kids are going to try and get online. You know, we know that kind of the age that you have to register or you're supposedly you have to be to register for your Facebook profile on Instagram account is 13. But of course kids aren't stupid, they know how to account. And they're making their way into the platform. But this almost kind of babyish version of the app could begin to hook in young, like hook in users even younger, and just be really, really harmful. Especially because you know, the routine of photo scrolling and body shaming, which we've seen have a huge impact on kids. not just in the UK, but around the world. To kind of make it sound better, Facebook did come out and say that they wouldn't be showing ads on any kind of Instagram product developed for children younger than 13 and it planned to kind of consult with experts on children's health and safety and it was working on a new age verification. But it's just crackers, like just don't do it. Why are you doing this? It's just mad. So thank God, thank God, this coalition of thirty five childrens and consumer groups and charities and everything else have just come out and said, what hell are you doing? Stop it.

Bex: It's funny, because we're talking about this in the midst of all this football stuff, which I only partially get because I'm not a football fan. But it feels kind of like the same from the perspective of they've gone. Oh, here's a problem. This is how we're gonna solve it without talking to any of the users or understanding our users at all. Like, yeah, this idea of a 13 year old or a 12 year old who's managed to get into big Instagram is not all of a sudden gonna go and use the kids version like sitting on the kids table at Christmas. Like, no one wants to do that. It's not the answer to the problem that they think they're trying to solve. Like, I like that they're like, oh, we're trying to fix this issue. You know, we're trying to create a safer space for children is their reasoning behind it, apparently. But this is not the answer, I don't think, to that at all.

Fay: No, and it's just, it's a moneymaker. We all know it's a moneymaker. It's gonna make and you know, it could bring in more money. I'm just reading an article here from Digiday as well and it's saying that this could make them $1.7 billion a year. Again, you're sacrificing the health, the safety of people for profit, which is not surprising, because it's Facebook. But still, it's just, yeah, don't do it. Don't do it to the kids, please.

Ankur: Yeah, there was a congressional hearing recently and there was someone talking about YouTube kids and if you've ever come across it or used it, and they described it in the best way I thought possible, which they called it a vacuous wasteland. And I thought that is pretty accurate. And that is probably what Instagram for kids will end up like as well. Like, they're actually arguably worse versions than even the kind of parent app. The kids one is just basically other children playing with products that they've been given a sale. And while they might say they don't display adverts on it, they will display ads through the content that has been delivered and that content has been prioritised over nothing. And I don’t think these don't need to be educational platforms. But the idea that is not just advertising by other means is just utterly ridiculous because we all know that's what's happening. The football stuff I think is actually a really interesting analogy to draw. There's a guy, I can’t remember his account, but he was talking about this morning. So the big argument behind the super leaguers is, it’s not palatable to fans that are teen superior Spurs plays some other crappy team in the premiership but nobody wants to watch that. And that's why young people don't watch football. And actually the reason young people don't watch football is Sky have priced everyone out of it. It's a £70 a month subscription to watch it. And I can't go watch a game because a ticket costs £85 to go to a premiership game. So you're the problem. You're the reason that young people don't watch football and now you want to create the solution to the reason that people don't watch football. And it's the same thing with Facebook. And it’s the same thing with Google and YouTube, is you created the problem and now you're telling us you're about to create the solution to the problem that you created in the first place.

Bex: [laughs] And it's the wrong answer, because you didn't do proper user research. Just did user research that validated your own opinions.

Fay: It's going to be interesting to see how Facebook responds to this and I think, you know, a point that you made Ross about, like, it doesn't matter if they're not going to be running ads on Instagram themselves. It's like, ads are so embedded in the Instagram experience. You know, like influencers and kind of paid partnerships. It's like, you know, by law now influencers whatever, have to obviously announce, oh, paid in partnership, you know, sponsorship by whoever. So of course, kids are still going to be alerted and seeing it. Oh, it just makes my skin crawl. 

Bex: I’ve only just thought about this, but how many influencers’ kids are now going to be used on that platform to make money?

Fay: Mommy bloggers. 

Bex: Yeah. I know a mommy blogger who totally sold out her kids and would just put on a party, like a Disney party just because Disney sent her loads of free stuff for the kid. And I'm like, well, does a kid even like Disney or was this just because you got some free stuff off Disney? Like you've turned your kid's party into an ad. Arghhh. Oh, yeah. I mean, I didn't even think of all of that. But that's going to skyrocket if this becomes a thing. But also like the idea of ads as well as such the lowest common denominator. Like the least thing we're worried about. We're actually worried about, like, trafficking, and grooming, like, which does happen through Instagram. Ankur, you’re nodding furiously away at me. 

Ankur: Yeah, I mean, that's the scary part. This is just creating another space where, you know, it's like, oh, here we have this, like, perfectly curated space for young people, which is really scary. But there's also this other question that comes up for me of what happens if something like this moves forward, whether it is Facebook and Instagram, or Twitter, or whatever, but oftentimes, we see the platforms follow each other. And so that, to me, is the scary part about all this is what this, you know, this might be, you might have folks at Twitter that are like, oh, this is a great idea. We should have Twitter for kids or whatever the thing is, and so I think it's actually really great that these organisations have caught this at this early stage and are really speaking out about it because we know kind of how these chain effects happen. If one platform starts then.

Bex: Keeping on the theme of young people, Charity News of the Week are suggesting that younger donors have increased trust in charities. Fay, this sounds like a nice topic. Tell us a little bit more about this. 

Fay: Yeah, this is a nice one. So let's leave Facebook being evil and Instagram being evil towards kids behind and just dive in to like a new study that's been done, which as you rightly said, showcasing that donors are getting younger and trust in charities is getting higher. Which is always good. You know, we know that the pandemic hasn't left anybody untouched. Over the past 18 months, charities have been trying to find different ways using different tools to kind of get their message out there. And as part of that, and kind of shifting to more digital tools, we are seeing that yeah, donors are getting younger, and Gen Z is leading the charge. And so according to Infuse I'm who are actually some of the folks who've been doing this study, Gen Z are donating more and have plans to keep doing so, which is great. And their research shows that 84% of the Gen Z generation donated during the pandemic and half of them have said that they will continue to do so afterwards. We've also seen that like, this report should I say not we I'm giving is becoming less general. So Digital Reason also did a study that kind of looked at how donors are thinking about charitable causes. So out of this survey, which was about 2000 people representing the UK, the results showed that nearly 60% of donations made were to combat the effects of COVID-19. So obviously, we all know that the past 18 months has been mega shitty for everybody. And people are just becoming more honed in on how they want to donate. But as part of that, we're also kind of seeing that trust is increasing in charities and their missions as well. So when people were asked about whether they trust charities, 54% responded positively, which is great, and this was an increase of 6%, from the last survey that's been rolled out. So yeah, we're really seeing this uptick and kind of Gen Z donors and kind of leading and sort of leading that charge. And as a result of that trust in charities and their missions is growing, which is great. Which is what we want. 

Ankur: The cynical part of me, makes me think that the reason trust and charities are increasing is because governments are doing such a poor job of holding their responsibilities. And so it's like, oh, well, we at least trustees, the charities, I hope that's not the case. But I can also I know, there's definitely reason to be sceptical of, you know, governments and so, yeah, that's interesting. But it is great to see regardless that people are donating in especially when people are donating in such large numbers.

Ross: I totally agree. Like I think so many communities were laid down by statutory services during COVID. Like whether it was education or health or whatever it was like and time and time again, it was charities that stepped into the void to help people. And I think people have recognised that and I'm glad to see there's a bit of a U-turn about public opinion of charities as a result. And particularly, really, like small grassroots community groups have done phenomenal work. Like there's a group that’s in our leadership programme. They’re quite a small charity and they delivered a quarter of a million hot meals in their community during COVID. And like, there's just stories all over Scotland, stories like that of smaller charities who have just completely stepped up. Like people, like people would have been hungry, like people would die like people witness in another human for months, had it not be for charities. 

Bex: Yeah, I'm really, really pleased to hear this. Because you know, how long have we been talking about trust in charities is waning, and it's not okay. And actually, there was a little bit of time as well, where we were talking about young people particularly not really trusting charities, and how they were all going off and doing crowdfunders instead of giving directly to a charity, who kind of knows what they're doing with the money. So that was worrying me for a little bit. So it's really good to see a positive news story on this angle.

Fay: I know. Yeah. And it's, you know, as part of this, as part of the news article, as well, it kind of shines a little bit of light on volunteering, and obviously, how volunteering is sort of changed and gone online, and is becoming more innovative. And, you know, obviously, people wanted to volunteer, because obviously, as you've all rightly said, governments and everything else let us down. So in order for people to actually make it through the pandemic, charities have had to step in, and people want to be part of that. But obviously, charities need to make sure that people are being safe. So it's great to see, kind of like pockets of communities that have sprung up online and are bringing people together and you know, or allowing people to volunteer in a safe way and kind of building a connect, you know, building that connection, as well, for the people that are volunteering. That's probably a big driver about this as well. You know, people want to kind of get behind a central cause and  help out if they're able to in any kind of small way that they are. So yeah, great to see that trust is on the uprise.

Bex: Yeah, and I think what's the point that you made about actually people seeing other people that aren't like them through volunteering might be helpful. You know, empathy is really hard. As designers, you talk about empathy all the time, like, it's such as something easy, you can just pick up, do a workshop on it, and all of a sudden you have empathy. And it's not that easy. And I think the easiest way to get empathy is by meeting someone who is part of a group that isn't like you. It's the fastest way to do it. So hopefully, all that volunteering will have increased empathy levels as well, which will be a weird, nice side effect of the pandemic. There has to be some right. Cool. Yeah, nice story. Thanks Fay. Maybe not so nice story. I can't tell because I admittedly don't really know a lot about this. But Tech News of the Week is about antitrust. And the article that we've found here is talking about anti trust being a distraction, antirust against big tech is a distraction from what? Ankur, please explain.

Ankur: Yeah, this is the most exciting topic today on the podcast, antitrust law. So yeah, basically, just just in terms of the background, there's this growing push that, you know, we've been seeing, especially in the US, but other places, too, in using anti trust laws against big tech. So basically, you know, the idea that companies like Google and Facebook and Amazon need to be broken up so that the market can be more competitive, right. And the idea behind this is, the logic is that if the market is more competitive, people will have more choices and then they'll only use platforms that treat them well. So that's the logic. 

Bex: Good logic, to be honest. I like that.

Ankur: [laughs] Good logic. The, you know, question that this article raises is, is this in fact the best way to be approaching, you know, the problems that we see with big tech? So you know, in the US, there's actually a lot of movement. It’s really one of the few bipartisan issues right now, in the US, and both Biden and like, right wing senators have come together around introducing antitrust legislation against big tech. And the question that the article raises is whether making the market more competitive is missing the point. Really, the question that, you know, the author raises is, should the focus be on making it more competitive? Or should the focus be on giving workers in these big tech companies, more power to organise for their own race as employees, but also, you know, to be able to have more power and more say over how these platforms work? You know, and that's an interesting argument. I know, we've talked about it a little bit in the past. But, you know, ultimately, these platforms are, you know, built by your software engineers, your vendors, your contractors, are designers. And so, if those folks are empowered to be able to push back against maybe some of the profit motive that these companies have, could that change the way users experience these platforms? And so I think that's an interesting point. But, you know, I also have questions about whether that would go far enough.

Bex: Yeah, I guess, like, from my very limited knowledge of this subject, it sounds like both are good. Like, you know, empowering workers, obviously, is amazing. But if the power is so big, that it's hard to fight it, surely, yeah, breaking it down and making it smaller makes it easier to find. It kind of feels like they’re hand in hand, right.

Ankur: Yeah. And I think that's where, you know, the author kind of concludes to. That they're both important, but consumers to market competitiveness in this case, and workers need to be empowered. They make an interesting point that, at least in the US, and I'm not sure if this is true in other places, but the intention behind these antitrust laws, when they were initially introduced, was to challenge the power that those at the top had over controlling production. So really over the control they had over workers and not about this whole market competitiveness piece. So in some ways, the original intention behind antitrust was what's around worker empowerment and that's kind of been lost over the years.

Ross: Yeah, I don't know how I feel about all this. It's like ethanolic second plasters like we just don't accept it when we get the end of what the model of capitalism looks like. And we'll just stick on a thing where we tell you, you can only do X, Y, and Z with your platform from now on, which just doesn't address the fact that like, you know, we have individuals who have a higher GDP than our huge chunk of the nations on Earth. It’s like we’re trying to do these tiny, tiny minute fixes to a system that is just catastrophic, we’re fucked, and is going to screw us all over. And it's already screwing us all over next week. We can tinker at the edges, but it's not going to make any difference. Yeah, so when I read articles like this, I'm like, great. So essentially, you're talking about socialism, and a country that has traditionally never liked or embrace socialism. So I don't know how that's gonna pan out. That's good that you're really looking at that, because you've no other examples of any hugely successfully owned, like worker multibillion pound companies in the States. I can't think of any. So suddenly, how are we going to force this on Facebook or Google or any other entity? Like what's that going to look like? So I don't know. I just think we're kind of get sidetracked. And I almost think like, the cynical button is like, is this a deliberate tactic by tech firms to like, say, trackers and thinking about it like these fringe issues, when actually fundamentally we've handed over control of our everyday lives to a few individuals. Like literally a handful of individuals control how we think and behave and what we do. So I don't know if that's the kind of downer chart you're looking for on this podcast. 

Bex: No we’re good. The cynics episode. It’s the stuff we talk about all the time. And I think it's interesting, though, because I think working in this sector, you constantly look up, and like, okay, yeah, I'm doing this thing down here on the ground in the short term, and I know I'm making change to those individuals I'm working with, but actually what's causing this? Oh, it's over here. It's up here. It's at government level. Oh, our whole society is fucked. And I think that it's good to look up and I do all the time. But yeah, I guess the question, though, is, what do we do about those five people that are controlling us. Is this going back in time sort of thing? I don't know.  What do we do about it? [laughs]

Ankur: We need a time Machine

Ross: I think time travel is your more sensible suggestion.

Bex: Just a thought, you know?

Ankur: No, I think that's a really good point Ross about the fact that the power is so concentrated, and so so concentrated right, at this point, and within just a few individual. That one of the reasons why, at least in the US, it's been so hard to challenge that is that no, a few individuals can basically pass laws that make it almost impossible for, you know, workers or anyone to be able to organise and challenge that power, let alone actually move away from the underlying kind of model that we have right now. And so, yeah, there's the question. I mean, that Amazon had, right, a union vote recently that was, you know, unsuccessful. It was great that there was an effort to do that. But, you know, I think that is the real challenge and until kind of the fundamental laws around union organising or you know, worker organising can change in the US, I think this seems pretty difficult to do.

Bex: I also do think this is a tech issue as well. It's our industry. I think we need to talk more about our industry because it skirts so many, it's able to skirt so many laws, because it's global. And if you do look at the top 10 richest people in the world aren't nine out of the 10 in the tech industry. There is something about the industry as well that needs and we really need to like, properly put our foot down instead of just skating around stuff. Yeah. Answers on a postcard.[laughs] Tweet at us, tweet at us your ideas, especially if it involves time travel at Tech for Good Live. 

Fay: Oh please don't. I'm the person that manages the Twitter account. We really prefer it if people I mean, maybe I'm sorry, I'll bring the optimism. Yes, please do send in your patents for time travel machines. And we'll deal with them. Thanks.

Bex: Thanks Fay. But it's related to this, there's another article here that you put in about ambassadors to big tech. This is really scary. And I don't like.

Ankur: Yeah, I mean, speaking about, you know, just the amount of power that these platforms and individuals who own these platforms have, that's comparable to, you know, nation states. There was this article written by, I guess, New York City has a Chief Technology Officer for Innovation. I didn't know this, even though I live here. But they basically talk about how many of our online spaces like Facebook, are in some ways, virtual nations, which I hadn't really thought about, but it's an interesting frame, that have their own rules, traditions, and where the companies that run them have government like powers over the people who use them, right, you can remove people off platforms. You can essentially deport people off your platform. And so the author is advocating for every country having tech ambassadors or big tech diplomats. So people who understand these platforms and can help governments use the full range of tactics the way you would with countries to recognise allies. So Facebook is allied, big tech platform, and Google is your enemy or whatever. And then try to use that to protect citizens on these platforms. And you know, right now, only a few countries have these Denmark was actually the first country to do this in 2017. And they had a like, former diplomat who was just a regular, not irregular, but like a very experienced diplomat who now is focused on tech. And so yeah, I think it raises some interesting ideas, but when I read this, something felt off about it. There's something about giving these platforms the legitimacy of countries. Wven though they have a lot of power and I get that, that just feels I don't know, it just gives me shivers.

Bex: That poor diplomat is like that Tech for Good podcast, Tech for Good Live podcast, they called me a regular diplomat. Do they not know who I am? 

Ankur: No, I'm sorry [laughs]

Bex: Don't tweet at us, Denmark's Tech Diplomat please. Thank you. We're sorry. We take that back. You're very, very cool and experienced. But yeah, I think I have the same feeling as you. I understand why they're doing this and it’s to regulate it and make sure it's all safe and stuff. It's a positive thing, I suppose. But yeah, it also feels like they don't deserve a diploma and should not have a diplomat. Right? Weird and scary. 

Fay: Yeah, I'm just reading the article. And the Austrian Tech Ambassador, is quoted in this article is, given this time of societal digital transformation, I think that diplomacy is what is needed. It's like, no, diplomacy isn't what's needed to rein in the powers that be. It's kind of, I don't even know, I don't even know. I know, we've spoken so much on this podcast about what Facebook's done, what Twitter's done, you know, thinking about the capital riots that obviously, I haven't a few months ago, and the role that social media and big tech platforms had in that. That's not diplomacy. That's like, shut them down? I don't know. I don't know.  This news story makes me really, really uncomfortable because it's giving power to players that should not have that level of power in my opinion. I'm sure that the highly experienced diplomat in Denmark may disagree. Answers on a tweet, please.

Ross: I think this is one of these things. It’s like as second class citizens, we have your best interests in heart, and we're going to work with these tech firms because actually what's most likely to happen is there's going to be a give/ take relationship where tech firms pay even lower tax than they do already. And the trade off as you stifle voices of revolution in my country, whatever that may look like and whatever makes it my political agenda. Whether it's Denmark or Sri Lanka, or somewhere else. Like, that's traditionally what has happened in the past. And I don't see why this would be any different and it's just a vehicle for making that happen. That's, that's my opinion. You're not going to invite me back on one of these, are you?

Bex: [laughs]

Ankur: But it's, it's yeah, the point, the point you're making is, is important, because there's this little anecdote they have about, in 2020, they had this, I guess, UN meeting high level roundtable on climate change. And high level as they talk about the article typically refers to like presidents, prime ministers and monarchs and they invited the president of Microsoft to that roundtable. And so just the idea, and this has happened, actually, I mean, also in the charity sector, which is kind of interesting, right, like Bill Gates being invited to these talks, as a foundation head. But just what happens when individuals have the power of national elected officials or kings. It's kind of, it's kind of scary.

Fay: King Zuckerberg. Oh, God, no, no, no, no. Abstain.[laughs]

Bex: This is what they want. Give them what they want. Oh, no, I was looking at Rant of the Week to see if it’s a nice one but it's not. 

Fay: It's not. 

Bex: So Fay, tech for bad. There's a company monitoring prisoners and it won an innovation award. Like so yeah, I'm happy to run about the awards, after you've told me more about this company.

Fay: Yeah, even though our and finally just if people have made it this far in the podcast so far, like good luck, you deserve an award, but like, and finally will be a nice cherry on top of the cake. But before we get there, this is like majorly tech for bad. So China, obviously the Chinese government is using prisons and detonation camps in Shinjang. Which other countries have weighed in on and called genocide. So you know, super quick background on that. So the Chinese government has forced upwards of a million Muslim minorities into mass internment camps in the past four years, simply for like religious practices or having connections to family abroad or over behaviour that the Chinese government has seen as suspect or like a friend, you know, as a threat to the state. There is a company called runway electronics, which is actually helping authorities in China, track the prisoners and track the detainees and they alert guards to their movements and they are even fitting them with heart rate monitors. And Renwei, the company has deployed a smart prison system in China's shinjang region, so where the mass majority of Muslim minorities have kind of been locked up. The thing that's really kind of sickening about this is that this didn't interfere with a warm welcome that Renwei actually got an event that was co hosted by an Amazon backed joint Innovation Centre back in November. So the event organisers gave the Renwei executive a platform to deliver. And I quote, an investor roadshow style speech to some of China's most prestigious investors. So kind of going, this is a great idea invest in us as we begin to monitor people. And they were given an award as a product innovation award recognising it as one of the six outstanding entrepreneurial, that's a mouthful, companies in the region. But Renwei has kind of come out and said, the reason that they have brought out this tech is that it improves efficiency, and it helps prison staff achieve new ideas of preemptive prevention, mid incident control and post incident verification. It's got like an early warning system built in. So if police are attacked, if detainees are entering areas that are forbidden to them, as I said, prisoners can also be fitted with electronic devices to monitor their heart rates and vital signs, which supposedly is to reduce the risk to law enforcement, as quoted by Renwei. It's just mad. It is just absolutely mad. Like, this whole idea of kind of high tech surveillance has really been a hallmark of life for people in the Shinjang camps and prisons. So the actual article that we're looking at here is BuzzFeed News and they interviewed more than two dozen people who were formally detained in the area who were monitored in real time by cameras, you know, placed in the corners of their cells, and they just kind of came out and said, you know, guards could punish them for even the tiniest infractions, such as speaking their native language, instead of Mandarin Chinese. And again, it's this whole idea of like big tech companies putting profit before people. This story just really is one of the worst tech for bad stories that I've read in a while.

Bex: [laughs] I mean, I will, I will pivot into awards in a minute. But first, like, I'm going to do a Ross comment and say actually, isn't the problem here also, just the prison system generally is not right, any word. That needs a whole overhaul. And this idea of, you know, monitoring the prisoners and the prisoners of the problem is not the way we should be thinking about prisons. And it's like been well proven that it doesn't work. We had Justice Digital UK, is kind of digital justice organisation, as you can imagine. Coming to your talk at Tech for good once, it was one of my favourite talks, because although the prison system isn't perfect, they were really trying to focus on what, what will help the prisoners, and it was definitely like up what positive digital things can occur, assuming that the prisoners aren't all evil, and what can help them. Like, it was a nicer way of looking at it, then, you know, I don't know, I guess I expect stuff like this to come out of the prison system, when we're viewing prisoners in this way. But yeah. Anyone else got any thoughts on the prison system or tech?

Ross: Well, I think it's interesting, Jay knows, like, for, like, well over a decade, how much they've used house arrest as a method to control and so you don't need a physical presence, you just keep someone in their house. And the fact that they've got the most sophisticated monitoring system that's ever existed in the history of humanity means you don't actually need physical imprisonment. So like, this notion of what a prison is in 2021, is actually quite antiquated. And we don't need a physical building because we can keep someone in their house. And we know exactly where they're going to go and what we're going to do, because we've got that infrastructure already. And actually prisons seem like quite a big cost overhead and we can probably make more profit by just keeping someone in the house that they pay for. So they pay for their own prison and all we do is monitor them through the system we have set up already. And it is almost like, the scary thing for me about this story is this is like a really outmoded step on something that's going to be much darker than simply keeping someone in a prison.

Ankur: Yeah, this feels like the Black Mirror pilot project before, you know, the actual thing that’s rolled out. And, you know, obviously here in the US, I mean, with so much police violence and systemic racism, this is the fear I know a lot of folks have right of how the police station is going to use these technologies to, you know, under the guise of reform, shift the current prison system, as you're saying to, you know, this essentially, self imprisoned kind of situation where you're literally paying for your own prison and you're being monitored at all times. It's pretty, it's pretty terrifying.

Bex: I'll do my quick pivot to awards because it's quite, I think it's a big pivot because this clearly wasn't a real award, right? This was just Amazon being dicks, trying to sell stuff or whatever. But when I did first read that they got an award despite it being an absolutely terrible product. That just made me mad because I see it all the time. Like some cool sounding products or products that don't even exist, and they're just a PR stunt. I especially even in the social goods sector, I think one of the worst award ceremonies I went to was a big it was I went all the way to New York for it and it was a big organisation, and it was social good, social tech innovation award thing. And every single award, we were like, that wouldn't work, well, that's a really bad idea, or is that even real? And we check it and it was just a PR stunt. It wasn't even an existing product. So I just got riled up about reading that it won an award. Of course, it won an award [laughs]

Fay: Yeah, it's not surprising, is it? That it won an award. And it's, yeah, it's just, as you say, Bex, don't get me wrong, like having awards is great to like acknowledge people that are actually creating solutions that work, but it's just become a PR machine. So it's like, even when there are awards, that people are kind of winning, for like innovative solutions, or work with a community or like whatever else, it's, you just kind of cast a doubt on it anyway, because it's just become so much of a PR stunt. And it's, you know, don't get me wrong, it’s a big thing that like, we've you know, we've all worked, I'm sure in kind of companies in the past, which are like, Oh, my God, we've got to enter for this award. And it's like, but why? What are you owing?

Bex: As someone who's worked on a product that has won many awards, like you get that award as someone who worked on it, and you’re like yayy. So I do see the benefits of awards and I'm not just trashing awards generally. But there's definitely something about, I don't know, social good tech, and it usually comes from the tech sector. And it's always wrong, because they don't get the sector, the charity sector. 

Ross: I had a, well, it's not just a speaker I had a rant about this, but one of the things I'm sick of and I think it was particularly annoying during COVID, is people from the tech sector coming in to try and save the charity sector as if they have all the answers. I thought it was particularly hilarious when it was like field tech people who couldn't carve out a career in the tech sector and come along and say that they're going to save a bunch of charities with their amazing knowledge of technology, and it's utter bullshit. And then the amount of times I see stuff getting given, not just awards, but like financial awards, like IE grants or contracts, to deliver a thing that fundamentally either like Bex said doesn't need to exist or that exists already. And so the classic one, I've seen a few of these been funded and it’s to the tune of literally hundreds of thousands of pounds. Like a video storytelling platform where people can talk about their experience. Now, on the one hand, some of these platforms are downright dangerous, because they have no thought as to like, we can't just stick a camera in front of someone who's had a traumatic experience and then put a video up. There’s a whole lot of stuff you need to think about there. But also, have you heard of YouTube? Like, you don't need a fucking video platform to put your videos on for that because the thing exists already. And you just see that that kind of tech sector coming in and scooping up loads of cash to deliver a thing that either exists or doesn't need to exist. And it's just we're continually hoodwinked in the charity sector by these people. And we need to scrutinise it much more.

Bex: I'm seeing a lot of like, and not to blame councils, because I think they're doing the best that they can in some instances, but a lot of them are giving out contracts to solve social problems, as you say, to big tech. And you're like, well, you trying to solve a social problem and that charity over there has been trying solve that social problem for years but it has no money, and you've got a load of money and you're not going to give it to the charity, right, you're going to give it to this tech company that knows nothing about. All right. Okay. Yeah, that sounds okay.

Ankur: There’s this worship of the idea of innovation. I think these awards are also called Innovation Awards, right? And so, when that when that becomes the focus, regardless of what the innovation is for, I think it just like skews the orientation of how we think about everything. And that obviously comes from, you know, tying back to capitalism, this idea of, you know, growth at all costs and so that's where I think you end up with these situations where even if you're innovating something really truly terrible or useless, you know, it's an award because it's want we say we want, you know.

Bex: Yay, we've been so happy on this podcast [laughs] We will end on a happy note though. There's a really cool and finally I think. I mean there is a little thing that's annoying me about it, but I won't say that. Let's just keep it positive.

Fay: Oh no, go on. I want to know what's annoying you about it. I'll tell them what it is first.

Bex: No, no. I'll say the bad thing first and then we'll just look at the positive right. I want to end on a positive note Fay. So there is like a freemium thing there where you can pay, does that go to charity or anything because that would be fine but I don't think it does. 

Fay: No. 

Bex: Okay. So there's that but ignore that. Let's talk about the nice stuff. 

Fay: It’s just a bit of fun to be completely honest, I was scrolling through Reddit last night because I was like, oh my God, we need an and finally. This podcast is pretty heavy. We've all like the tech for bad and I just came across Cat per dot Click, which it's just a web game. And the whole idea is that you pet the cat. And it's a competition to see which country gets the most pets on the cat. That's it. It's nothing fancy. But currently, Germany is leading the way with, closely followed by Iceland and then Italy. So if you fancy just spending some time, if you're on a boring meeting, you can just pet the cat. I did 24. That's my personal record at the moment. And it makes a sound when you click it. 

Ankur: I just did 174 while you were talking. 

Fay: Oh my God. 

Ankur: No, it's very easy. But how is Germany, if you look at the numbers on this site, Germany, like this can't be real. There's no possible way. [laughs]

Fay: You can buy clicks. 

Bex: Yeah, I think it’s gambling. I think it's gambling Fay. I think we’re promoting gambling.

Ankur: [laughs]

Fay: Oh, God. Oh God. Yeah. Cause five clicks is $1. Where does the money go? Okay, see this. Okay. We're gonna spin this round. So this was meant to be a nice and finally, I clearly am no good in the researcher position, so please come back, Greg. And I've just just highlighted a gambling scheme that maybe we can look into and get to the bottom of. But if you are from Cat per dot Click, maybe consider donating some of your click funds to cat charities. Just saying. 

Bex: Or if you already do, tweet us at Tech for good life. And we will rectify this.

Fay: [laughs] Don't gamble. It's bad for you. 

Bex: [laughs]

Fay: Great and finally. I’ve failed massively. Please come back Greg [laughs]

Bex: Luckily, that's all we have time for today. I’m cutting you off Fay. You’re done.. Thanks for listening everybody. Ross, how was that for you? Was that all right?

Ross: Apart from the cat bit I mean [laughs] I'm only joking Fay. Don't beat yourself up. I fundamentally don't get the thing with cats anyway. 

Fay: What? It's like oh my God.

Ross: Why would you have something that selfish living with you?You need money to have something selfish live with you? That's weird. I don't get it. Don't get cats at all. So yeah,

Fay: Yeah. Cool. We can't be friends Ross. 

Bex: Oh, yeah. I feel like we need to cancel the podcast. Paul don't edit it. It's not going out.

Ross: I did see a cat in the background Bex. 

Bex: I’ve got five cats. 

Ross: I fundamentally respect cats because they’re linked to you all.

Bex: That’s why I like them. That’s cool. You do you.

Ross: You keep them nicer than any humans and they hate you. They all hate you. They don't care about you.

Bex: Some of mine are proper classic dickkhead cats. Some of them definitely.

Ross: I respect the cats. It’s you guys I don’t respect.

Fay: Oh, I love it. Makes me want to end the screen. I love it.

Bex: She's gonna come and get your ass, she is. She will cut you. She will find you. [laughs]

Fay: She will cut you. That’s the one that doesn’t like me anyway. It’s evil. 

Bex: She only likes me. She's obsessed with me, but hates everybody else in the world. It's really amazing actually, I quite like it. Um, anyway, where can people find you on the internet Ross. I assume you're not on the internet because you hate cats. 

Ross: No I’m not on the internet. I don’t use the internet. 

Bex: [laughs] No, go on. What's your Twitter? Tell everyone your Twitter.

Ross: My Twitter is Third Sector Lab.

Bex: And is there anything you want to plug? 

Ross: Oh, yeah, I’ll plug stuff. Cool. I've got free stuff to plug. That’s always good. So we did a thing last year, during COVID called the Curve which was free digital skills training for charities. And we did this across a number of areas with service design there for decision making and SEO, a whole range of stuff. And so we've got workshops, once a week they're going to run through 2021. You can book places just now if you go to third sector lab dot co.uk slash training. You can see the full schedule that's coming up. I think there's about eight that are up there already and there's going to be new ones coming up every couple of weeks. There's three workshops on data and data visualisations or some on technical SEO coming up as well. But if you work in a charity in the UK, you can sign up for free. Someone did ask me are they only for Scottish people? No, they are not only for Scottish people. So you don't have to be Scottish to go on one of the workshops as long as you're working in a charity. 

Awesome. Thank you very much. listeners. What did you think we'd love to hear your thoughts get in touch on Twitter. I think you know what the Twitter is by now. Or you can email us at Hello at Tech for good dot live. We'd also love it if you gave us a nice iTunes review and told your mates about this podcast. Thanks to Podcast.co for hosting the podcast and to Paul for editing and the rest of the volunteer team. Thank you everybody for everything you do. That's all. Thank you and bye. 

Fay: Bye.

Ankur: Bye. 

Ross: Bye.