In our interviews, we asked builders about a hypothetical scenario: If you didn’t exist, would your users seek out another solution to their data governance problems? Across the board, the answer was probably not. Not because users and communities aren’t aware of their data challenges, but because many simply don’t have the technical capacity or resources to challenge the status quo themselves.

This leaves a challenging environment for builders. Most are offering products to clients who are familiar with the issues that data stewardship addresses, but not with the solutions products are implementing. Still, builders are testing out varying methods of communicating their work, embedding themselves within industries where they can speak the language, and attempting to make their technologies usable and understandable enough to generate appeal.

This research on consumer views pulls together insights from the field with feedback from builders on what demand looks like for the technologies they provide. These limited, preliminary insights were compiled by combining external research, qualitative interviews, and a small focus group survey of builders, and likely warrant further research.

Key questions for this section include:

• How do people view data stewardship?
• What do people gain from data stewardship?
• What are builders supplying?

How do people view data stewardship?

Many technologies in the data stewardship space are still untested at scale without wide market appeal. Research conducted by decentralized tech builders Streamr and Swash has shown that consumers are curious about opportunities to take control of their data through frameworks like data unions. But, as one builder in the consumer rights space said, most of consumers’ decisions on these issues are based on a general fear about the creepiness of technologies that they don’t understand.

Some builders and supporting entities believe that storytelling and education from trusted organizations about personal data hygiene could open a path to increased adoption of technologies that protect data rights. Builders need to build trust with consumers and understanding of new technologies they’re being asked to use.

Others believe that if pilot technologies can simply get to market and demonstrate maximal effectiveness and usability, consumers will begin with good personal data hygiene and build a collective consciousness around data stewardship over time. In other words, people need to see results with technology before builders can earn their trust.

The success of either of these approaches may vary based on national context. For example, a survey by the Insights Network published in 2018 showed that 79 percent of American consumers say they want compensation when their data is shared, but the same may not be true in countries with more traditionally collectivist cultures that might care more about affecting how data is used than receiving dividends. Alternatively, member-based groups like Privacy International are leading conversations about the fact that data dividends should not be a replacement for data rights. Builders noted that using “rights”-based language resonates more with consumers than explaining the specifics of how data stewardship technologies work. This is not only true in the consumer space — environmental justice networks that rely on crowdsourced sensor data note that people participate in “intentional sharing” when they feel personally connected to the issues at hand, for example when monitoring local polluters in their neighborhoods.

In a limited survey of builders, respondents noted that their primary constituents, or people who directly use technologies for data stewardship, tend to be above average in tech or data literacy, though not necessarily experts in the specific technologies at hand. Streamr’s research shows that “Early Adopters” often have technical skills before finding Data Unions and “don’t require slick UX or product design to use a product or service.” Most builders we surveyed described their primary constituents or users as curious and excited to use their technologies, but also generally unaware of wider efforts to build justice through data rights.

In the same limited survey, builders said that their beneficiaries, or those who receive downstream benefits from data stewardship efforts, tend not to be tech or data literate. A KPMG report on a US corporate data responsibility published in 2020 found that generally, consumers aren't very cognizant of protecting their own data. Some 61 percent of consumers said they don’t use any computer security software, and 86 percent of consumers were not using encrypted messengers. This implies that those builders whose goals include widespread adoption will need to find ways to communicate and market their products that don’t rely on thorough understanding of data governance costs and benefits.

Across our research, those communicating out about data stewardship initiatives were extremely clear that the words they use matter. Because so much of the general public is generally unaware of niche technologies for data stewardship, builders need to find marketable ways to describe technologies that develop healthier data practices.

What do people gain from data stewardship?

Builders and supporting entities design data governance models that balance the need for individual versus collective control. Most builders recognize the need for both personal data protection and building collective power to affect change. While some builders develop technologies for personal data protection,

One of the strongest insights we found across geographies and industries was that data stewardship often appears in contexts where a social contract has been broken. A social contract is an implicit agreement between an individual and the collective they choose to submit to for social benefit.

In many cases, this speaks to a broken trust between people and their governments. Kathmandu Living Labs, a company compiling crowdsourced mapping data and managing local volunteer networks, has used the OpenStreetMap framework to develop more robust local data on roads and infrastructure than the national government or multinational companies like Google are able to provide. Animikii, an Indigenous-owned software company based in Canada, has been working with Indigenous governments for over a decade to build open, collectivized infrastructure that reflects local cultures of governance where non-Indigenous Canadian tech companies and governments have failed.

When people find water contamination in their backyards, they purchase sensors and join networks like Safecast or Public Lab, where people compile open data on radiation and other environmental risks through projects like Open Environmental Data. When people don’t know where to go for social services because governments have failed to make benefits available or accessible, they go to groups like Open Referral to organize coordinated care.

Data stewardship is at its best when it is used as a tool for collective outcomes, or to right societal wrongs. Users benefit from having access to technologies that give them these tools to participate in shifting the status quo.

In our survey, builders ranked the trust their users demonstrated in government entities, their peers, or in themselves to make decisions about data use. Almost all respondents suggested that users would trust a collective of their peers more than they would trust themselves or their governments to appropriately use personal data. Admittedly, individuals’ trust in government can vary based on the political context or the entity. For example, a study by the Open Data Institute showed that most British residents trust NHS and healthcare providers to use data ethically but have less trust in central and local governments. Broadly speaking, polls are split on consumers’ trust in governments’ abilities to handle data, but polls in the US have shown strong support for privacy legislation overall, which reflects the same demands uncovered through our ecosystem research across geographic contexts.

What are builders supplying?

The Mozilla Insights Team’s previous research uncovered seven approaches to data governance in use throughout the field. Our research in this phase confirmed that builders rarely self-identify as using one of these models, and sometimes blur the lines between them (and they are indeed meant to be mixed and matched, as we pointed out in the research). In investigating this issue further, we found that builders’ data governance approaches often fall into one of the following categories framed around user benefit. Because Indigenous data sovereignty can include a wide range of benefits focusing instead on the locally relevant needs of Indigenous users, it is excluded from this categorization.

Individual ownership or privacy is most often enabled by blockchain technology or other recent technological advances that allow the decentralization and encryption of individual-level data. This model prioritizes an individual’s complete control over their data. Ideologically, this creates a decision point for builders given that much of personal data, especially that which is produced via social media platforms or other social engagement, is relational and requires dealing with the sovereignty of another individual involved as well as generating population-level insights. Because individuals have complete control over their data, most technologies in this space allow for users to view and delete their data at any time. Relevant approach: Data marketplace

Contractual or consent-based ownership exists in spaces where a diverse range of constituents can be affected by decisions made by one entity contractually permitted to control the data. In these scenarios, collective ownership is not legally binding outside of the individual's consent to share data with an intermediary — for example, as participants in research studies or constituents of data trusts.

Consent models, many of which were pioneered in ethical scientific research spaces, rely on designers and trusted intermediaries to craft agreements which accurately communicate benefits and risks and provide opt-out mechanisms for constituents. In the most advanced and effective of these models, constituents can either consent or opt out of participation, or fully remove themselves and delete their data at will (though they can not affect other governance decisions around the data). This is the most common strategy for data stewardship projects that lack the technology or legal resources to enable complete individual or collective ownership. Relevant approaches: Data collaboratives, data trusts, data fiduciaries

Collective ownership requires for stakeholders and data constituents to share ownership of the data, decisions, and equity emerging from data use. Data unions are an example of how individual data ownership can be extended into formalized collective models through which constituents may receive dividends and have input into decisions about how data is used or sold. The few existing projects that apply collective data ownership tend to rely on business governance structures like cooperatives, but some projects are exploring working with trade unions or other existing governing bodies that manage the distribution of value and governance over decision-making about data. Relevant approach: Data cooperatives

Open access is based on core ideals of transparency through open licensing and public participation. Many existing data commons are built on extensive or dedicated volunteer networks that openly contribute to and govern data assets that are managed as public goods. Data commons generally exist to create public knowledge and promote open information, but may be limited to uses where data does not expose individuals to privacy risks. Data commons are most often used in situations where the use of data provides a clear and unmistakable civic good that is deeply felt by participating constituents. Relevant approach: Data commons