Feature
The Past, Present, and Future of Democracy—A Summer Reading List from the Allen Lab
As we celebrate America’s 250th, the Allen Lab for Democracy Renovation is reflecting on how we arrived at this moment and where we are headed.
Policy Brief
Bridging-Based Ranking
This report explores the potential of bridging and discusses some of the most common objections, addressing questions around legitimacy and practicality.
The Problem
Algorithmic ranking and recommendation systems determine what kinds of behaviors are rewarded by digital platforms like Facebook, YouTube, and TikTok by choosing what content to show to users. Because these platforms dominate our attention economy, and because attention can be transformed into money and power, platform recommendations therefore provide a reward structure for society at large.
Platforms currently reward divisive behavior with attention due to the interactions between engagement-based ranking and human psychology. This helps determine the kinds of politicians, journalists, entertainers, and others who can succeed in their respective social arenas, resulting in significant impacts on the quality of our decision-making, our capacity to cooperate, the likelihood of violent conflict, and the robustness of democracy.
The opportunity
We can potentially mitigate this ‘centrifugal’ force toward division by deploying ranking systems that do the opposite—that provide a countervailing ‘centripetal’ or bridging force.
Bridging-based ranking rewards behavior that bridges divides. For example, imagine if Facebook rewarded content that led to positive interactions across diverse audiences, including around divisive topics. How might that change what people, posts, pages, and groups are successful?
This report explores the potential of bridging and discusses some of the most common objections, addressing questions around legitimacy and practicality. It contrasts bridging with some of the most discussed approaches for reforming ranking: reverse-chronological feeds, ‘middleware’, and ‘choose your own ranking system’. (Unfortunately, without introducing bridging, all of these proposed reforms still reward those who seek to divide.) Finally, this report explores early examples where bridging systems are already being tried with some success.
Summary of Next Steps
We can and should rapidly build capacity to develop, evaluate, and deploy bridging-based ranking systems.
- Governments, platforms, funders, and researchers must direct resources towards this goal.
- We specifically call for platforms to measure the extent to which their products divide people (bridging metrics), and to include both bridging metrics and bridging-based ranking into their product roadmaps and quarterly goals.
- To address legitimacy and platform power concerns, we suggest putting the ultimate question of ‘what recommendation systems should reward’ to the impacted populations through platform democracy. We further argue that the default should not be divisive engagement-based ranking, or chronological feeds (that reward those who post the most), but bridging-based ranking (as it actively mitigates divisive tendencies).
- We must involve interdisciplinary scholars and practitioners to ensure that what we create is truly beneficial for the public and democracy.
Bridging-based ranking alone is not a silver bullet—we need other reforms to address the many challenges of platform-enabled connectivity. But bridging would help address one of the most significant risks—that of being pushed past a “division threshold” beyond which democracy can no longer function.
Related Resources
Commentary
Work in the Age of AI: Reflections from After Neoliberalism
Allen Lab member Charlie Covit reflects on the After Neoliberalism conference and examines the intersection of artificial intelligence and the future of work, arguing that AI forces a democratic reckoning with the meaning of labor itself and that an economy which generates abundance while stripping citizens of purpose and dignity undermines the very foundation of democratic life.
Q+A
Q & A: Crocodile tears, Can the ethical-moral intelligence of AI models be trusted?
As artificial intelligence becomes more embedded in everyday decision-making, its role in shaping how people think about ethics and morality is drawing increasing scrutiny. In this conversation with researcher Sarah Hubbard, we discuss insights from her co-authored paper, “Crocodile Tears: Can the Ethical-Moral Intelligence of AI Models Be Trusted?”—examining how AI systems respond to moral dilemmas, and what this reveals about the risks, limitations, and need for greater transparency and human oversight in AI-driven ethical guidance.
Commentary
Work in the Age of AI: Reflections from After Neoliberalism
Allen Lab member Charlie Covit reflects on the After Neoliberalism conference and examines the intersection of artificial intelligence and the future of work, arguing that AI forces a democratic reckoning with the meaning of labor itself and that an economy which generates abundance while stripping citizens of purpose and dignity undermines the very foundation of democratic life.
Media Release
AI models appear to recognize moral complexity — then ignore it, new study by researchers affiliated with Harvard Kennedy School’s Allen Lab finds
New study published in AI and Ethics introduces a new ethical-moral intelligence framework for AI and finds that leading AI models mimic human moral concern while making decisions that reveal a hidden value hierarchy.
Article
Artificial Intelligence and Democracy: Campaigns, Elections, Movements, and Deliberation
A new chapter in APSA Preprints by Archon Fung, Winthrop Laflin McCormack Professor of Citizenship and Self-Government and Director of the Ash Center, Bailey Flanigan, former postdoctoral fellow at the Ash Center and co-authors explores how generative AI is reshaping four dimensions of democratic practice—political campaigns, election administration, social movements, and citizen deliberation. The authors argue that AI’s ultimate democratic impact will depend less on the technology itself, and more on how institutions and leaders implement and regulate it.