Lightning Talk #80 Launch of the Digital Constitutionalism Database v2

Summary

The discussion centered on the launch of the second version of the Digital Constitutionalism Network database, which catalogs over 300 digital bills of rights spanning from 1992 to 2023. Dennis Redeker from the Digital Constitutionalism Network explained that these documents are not traditional constitutional amendments but rather share common constitutional language and rhetoric while establishing rights and principles for the digital age. The collection includes diverse documents authored by various stakeholders including civil society organizations, governments, and companies, with many originating from internet governance forums and similar events.

Marielle Wijermars from Maastricht University detailed the dataset’s composition, noting that recent years have seen increased focus on AI-related rights. The database reveals that civil society actors and intergovernmental organizations are the most active producers of these documents, with Europe being heavily represented while some regions remain underrepresented. The coding process involved 58 substantive principles including freedom of expression, network neutrality, and multi-stakeholder governance, all hand-coded by researchers over three to four years.

Kiho Oshima from the University of Bremen demonstrated the database’s user-friendly interface, which features keyword searches, advanced filtering options, and multilingual document access. The platform allows users to filter by proponent type, location, and specific topics while providing direct links to original documents. During the Q&A session, participants raised questions about including platform terms of service, document validation processes, and measuring the actual impact of these digital rights declarations. The presenters acknowledged current limitations including the database’s cutoff date and potential language barriers in document collection, while expressing interest in future collaborations and expanded coverage.

Keypoints

**Major Discussion Points:**

– **Database Launch and Overview**: The presentation introduced the second version of the Digital Constitutionalism Network database, which contains over 300 digital bills of rights spanning 30+ years (1992-2023), including documents from various stakeholders like civil society, governments, and multi-stakeholder initiatives.

– **Dataset Characteristics and Methodology**: The speakers explained that these documents aren’t all legally binding constitutions, but rather share constitutional language and rhetoric about digital age rights and principles. The coding process was comprehensive and hand-coded by multiple contributors over 3-4 years, covering 58 substantive principles.

– **Database Functionality and User Experience**: A detailed walkthrough demonstrated the database’s user-friendly interface, including keyword search, advanced filtering options, and the ability to access documents in multiple languages with direct links to source materials.

– **Scope and Limitations**: Discussion of current limitations including the dataset only extending to 2023, potential language barriers in document collection (primarily English and European languages), and the need for ongoing updates and validation of document status.

– **Future Applications and Impact Measurement**: Audience questions explored expanding the database to include terms of service documents, measuring the actual impact of these digital rights declarations, and developing partnerships for better global coverage and validation.

**Overall Purpose:**

The discussion aimed to launch and demonstrate a comprehensive database of digital rights documents, encouraging researchers, educators, and practitioners to use this resource for comparative analysis, teaching, and developing new digital rights frameworks.

**Overall Tone:**

The tone was consistently professional, collaborative, and educational throughout. The presenters were enthusiastic about their work while being transparent about limitations. The audience engagement was constructive and forward-thinking, with questions focusing on practical applications and improvements rather than criticism. The atmosphere remained positive and encouraging, with speakers welcoming feedback and collaboration opportunities.

Speakers

– **Dennis Redeker**: Digital Constitutionalism Network member, presenter and session moderator

– **Marielle Wijermars**: Colleague from Maastricht University, dataset specialist

– **Kiho Oshima**: Colleague from the University of Bremen, database walkthrough specialist

– **Audience**: Multiple audience members asking questions during the Q&A session

Additional speakers:

None – all speakers in the transcript are accounted for in the provided speakers names list.

# Digital Constitutionalism Network Database Launch: Discussion Report

## Introduction and Overview

The discussion focused on the launch of the second version of the Digital Constitutionalism Network database, presented as a joint session between the Digital Constitutionalism Network and the Internet Rights and Principles Dynamic Coalition. Dennis Redeker from the Digital Constitutionalism Network served as presenter and moderator, joined by colleagues Marielle Wijermars from Maastricht University and Kiho Oshima from the University of Bremen.

The database is a comprehensive repository containing 321 digital bills of rights spanning from 1992 to 2023. Redeker explained that these documents are not traditional constitutional amendments but share constitutional language and rhetoric while establishing rights and principles for the digital age. The project received funding from the Center for Advanced Internet Studies in Bochum and the EU project REMIT.

## Database Scope and Methodology

The collection encompasses diverse documents from various stakeholders including civil society organizations, governments, companies, and multi-stakeholder initiatives. Many documents originated from internet governance forums, reflecting the collaborative nature of digital rights development.

The comprehensive coding process involved identifying 58 substantive principles, including freedom of expression, network neutrality, and multi-stakeholder governance. This categorization was achieved through hand-coding by multiple researchers over three to four years. Wijermars noted that the database enables researchers to trace how digital constitutionalism has evolved in response to technological developments, with recent years showing increased focus on AI-related rights.

Geographically, Europe features heavily in the database, while some regions remain underrepresented. Civil society actors and intergovernmental organizations represent the most active producers of these documents.

## Database Functionality

Oshima demonstrated the database’s user interface, which offers keyword search functionality and advanced filtering options by proponent type, geographical location, and specific rights topics. Search results display detailed document information, including specific topics covered and exact locations where particular principles appear. The database supports multiple languages beyond English and provides direct links to original source documents.

## Current Limitations

The presenters acknowledged several limitations. The current dataset extends only until “two years ago” as mentioned by Redeker, meaning recent developments are not captured. Language barriers may have resulted in missed documents, particularly those in non-English or non-European languages.

An audience member from Peru noted that many documents on governmental platforms remain as drafts rather than enacted policies. Redeker acknowledged that the validation process faces challenges in distinguishing between drafts and approved versions of documents.

## Future Development Plans

The team plans to extend the timeline to capture more recent documents and experiment with Large Language Model (LLM) coding to support human coders. Redeker emphasized that LLMs would supplement rather than replace human coding. The researchers expressed interest in developing partnerships and collecting user feedback for improvements.

Integration with related projects, such as the University of Bremen’s platform governance archive, represents another avenue for expansion.

## Key Discussions

### Scope Questions

An audience member suggested including platform terms of service that employ constitutional language. Wijermars responded by distinguishing between documents that create new rights versus those that translate existing legislation, arguing that terms of service serve different purposes from the rights-creating documents currently in the database.

### Impact Assessment

Questions arose about measuring the actual impact of these digital rights declarations on legislation, regulation, and court decisions. Wijermars acknowledged the complexity of measuring civil society impact while defending the database’s utility for understanding how ideas develop over time. Redeker admitted that proving direct causation between digital bills of rights and policy developments requires analysis beyond the current database scope.

### Validation Concerns

Questions about document validation revealed the need for better processes to ensure document authenticity and current legal status. The researchers acknowledged they currently lack systematic local partnerships for validation.

## Practical Applications

Redeker mentioned that IT4Change provided a testimonial about using the database for teaching purposes. Wijermars referenced presenting the work at the GigaNet conference and mentioned digital constitutionalist blended intensive programs in Salerno, demonstrating the database’s educational applications.

## Conclusion

The Digital Constitutionalism Network database represents a significant resource for researchers, educators, and practitioners studying digital rights evolution. The comprehensive collection of 321 documents with detailed coding provides unprecedented access to three decades of digital rights discourse. While current limitations around temporal coverage, geographical representation, and validation processes were acknowledged, the team’s plans for expansion and community engagement suggest continued development of this research tool.

The discussion highlighted both the database’s current utility and the ongoing challenges in studying digital constitutionalism systematically, particularly regarding impact assessment and global representation.

Dennis Redeker: Hello and welcome to a session of the Digital Constitutionalism Network together with the Internet Rights and Principles Dynamic Coalition. We’re very happy that you’re here, there are some people interested and also joining. Come by, take a seat. Today we’ll be presenting and launching the second version of the Digital Constitutionalism Network database of digital rights and we’ll be talking a little bit about its background, its functionality. I will give you a walkthrough and we have some time for questions later on. So first I will give you a background and tell a little bit about the things that we do have in store for the future and I hand over to my colleague Marielle Wijermars from Maastricht University to talk a little bit about the dataset that’s underlying the database and then further going on to my colleague Kiho Oshima from the University of Bremen who will walk you through the database so that you can make use of it and we’ll have time for questions. So first of all the question is, I guess, what are these digital bills of rights that we have collected? We have collected over 300 of these documents. They are not, and I had a conversation yesterday with someone who asked, are these all constitutions? Are these all amendments to constitutions like in the American case? They are not, in fact. Many of these are not binding documents. Many of these are produced by civil society stakeholders and companies who, however, have something in common. That is, they have a language, a rhetoric of constitutionalism and they also entail rights and principles for the digital age. So that’s what they have in common and they can be directed, not just at public stakeholders, that is public powerholder stakes, but also companies. And they are authored by various kinds of stakeholders, many of which actually also here in the room. So many of these digital bills of rights have a history of being created at an internet governance forum or similar event. Examples for these documents, and you’ll see it on the slide, come from all over the place. And as you see in this list, they’re quite diverse in terms of their bindingness, for example. The African Declaration of Internet Rights and Freedom, for example, is an example of a civil society-led initiative. Marco Civil in Brazil, many of you will know that, is a document that entails a comprehensive list of rights and principles for the internet. And there are many more. Many of those also today focus on AI. So what is the point of this database? We created a database because we wanted to bring all these documents into one place where they can be accessible to everyone, where they can be compared, where people can research them, where people can indeed use them for all of their purposes. So with people who we work with who use that for teaching and training and their own research. So it can also be a good tool if you are interested in writing a list of principles for your organization or your event or for the world, that you have a look into these existing documents. The coding worked in a quite comprehensive way, in a hand-coded way. So you see a lot of people here on the list who contributed to the data collection and the data coding. This happened over three or four years. And what we coded for are substantive principles, 58 of those, and examples include freedom of expression, network neutrality, also multi-stakeholder governance. This has been funded by many people in a way, so I just have this slide up here. Because it’s a long-term project, particularly to note maybe the Center for Advanced Internet Studies here in Bochum, which gave funding for the website and the EU project REMIT. In the future we plan to extend this, so the current database runs only until two years ago. So we want these documents to be coded, and we’re also experimenting in a current project with LLM coding and how this can enhance, can support human coders, but also what kind of LLMs are how good in doing that kind of qualitative coding work by way of benchmarking. And we also plan to work with other partners who have other users for this database for their own particular purposes. And I’m handing over to Marielle.

Marielle Wijermars: Excellent. So I will talk you through some of the more specifics of what actually is in this data set and what you will be able to work with in the database. So as I mentioned, there’s over 300 bills of digital rights, or 321, and they range for over 30 years. So the oldest one that we have in the collection is 1992, all the way up to 2023. And of course we know that these keep on being developed, so if you would expand it in future then of course the database can be expanded further. The interesting first thing that we’re able to do with this data set is then to see the developments over time, so the frequency, how many of these bills are produced every year. And what you see here in the bottom is the total, but above it’s split up, because we noticed that in the most recent years, a lot of the production actually is related to AI. So even though there is indeed peaks, a lot of that peak actually is related to AI and continuous thinking about how to marriage AI with human rights protection. What we find particularly important about the data set is that it gives you insight into the diverse actors that are behind these declarations, that use this format to try and shape global thinking about rights. So here you can see who has been proposing it, so who are the developers and signatories. We see quite a large chunk of it is intergovernmental, so things like United Nations, but also this is a format that civil society uses very actively, so you see a very large number of civil society actors here. But also in green, there’s a multi-stakeholder, so where multiple kinds of actors have come together to form a declaration. Another thing that you’re able to see just on the basis of the database as a whole is also the global distribution. So Europe features very heavily within this collection, also global, so you need these international organizations. But at the same time, we of course also see that some regions are underrepresented, which can be for various reasons. And you see here also the different kind of actors, so for example, in the stack for Europe, you see the civil society represented in blue, very active, but also governments in this dark red. So that also is different for the different regions. So the reason why we developed such a thing, so why we’ve invested so much effort, is that it is a unique tool for both research and teaching, and we’ve already been using it. So if you were able to join the GigaNet conference here as well on Monday, you’ve seen our presentation with some first research using this entire database, trying to see clusters, so which kinds of actors have been promoting which principles, we would be happy to share those results with you. But we’ve also been using it in teaching in the context of the digital constitutionalist blended intensive programs, of which the most recent one was in Salerno, that you see the picture here on the slide. And we very much invite you to also think about how you might apply it into your work. So now I’ll hand it over to my colleague. Yep. There you go. Thank you.

Kiho Oshima: So now, so far, maybe you are interested in using it already. So I will give you a little bit of walkthrough of how this dataset works. So if you go to digitalconstitutionalism.org database, you see the first page as this. So it’s really simple, it’s really user-friendly. I’m not saying because I’m from the organization, but I find it really generally really simple. So there’s keyword search bar, there’s code book, there’s also advanced search. So let’s say that you have already in mind specific keyword or topics that you’re interested in, but you’re not sure what kind of documents are available. Then you can go to the advanced search, and you can see all these types of filtering that you can apply. And there’s, for example, proponent type or proponent location, whether it is from Europe or Asia, like you can choose there. There are more varieties than that, but yeah. And also, if you go to topics, you can see there are all 58 types of rights that we include for coding. So you can go there and then look what types of topics you’re interested in specifically. And for example, if you’re interested in human rights, and also maybe if you’re interested in proponent type of multi-stakeholder, you can choose there. And you see a result something like this. It’s really simple. On the left side, you can see the title and the released year, and you can go to details. And there you can not only see the released year or titles or URL directly led to the link, but also all types of the topics that’s included there, and also exactly where it is located inside the document. So it’s really useful if you’re specifically maybe interested in already human rights, but also, for example, freedom of disinformation or something like that. You can have a nice engagement there. And it’s also, I forgot to mention, that there’s also points that available language. So if you’re interested in looking at the documents not only in English, but also in other languages. For example, for this document, it includes Nepali, English, and Spanish, and so on. So if you would like to compare some kind of… Documents in different language. That’s also really useful Yeah, so if you go to the document by the URL there directly leads you to the page like this and Yeah, that’s really it. So it’s quite simple if you have any feedback or Comments, so we really appreciate it

Dennis Redeker: Yes Yeah, thank you. So this is a Unfortunately, we couldn’t get anyone who used The database on the stage because they’re all very busy Doing their own sessions at the moment But we did get a testimonial from from IT4Change who will be using and you see this on the screen Who are currently using this for their own institutes their teaching institutes and that’s not an academic research or academic teaching But indeed more civil society driven one I think there are some things that we have to say in terms of the limitations This data set is not until 2025 we said this earlier We also in terms of the languages the fact that we most of us research these documents collected them mostly in English And some other European languages meant that we might have missed some documents I mean, that’s certainly something that we want to look into in the future So if you have any if you’ve any documents that you know of that are not in a database do check it out Let us know so we can put them on a list and can include them in the next instance of the data set But now we actually want to turn it to you if you have any questions comments Ideas of how you can get involved. Let us know Yes Just

Audience: Yeah, thanks a lot for the presentation Great resource. I think I was wondering if in the future We also see is that terms of service and platforms conditions also include to degree And increasingly so constitutional language as users will have the right to use our service for such-and-such Do you intend to see those as sort of documents of digital constitution in the future and will you then include them in a database as well

Marielle Wijermars: It’s an interesting question Because of course, I think that the these terms of service there is somewhere in between And it’s where also a lot of national legislation gets translated into terms of service So it’s quite a particular type of document where perhaps it is slightly different that they do not try to create rights Well the documents that we have many of them in the database They’re trying to fight for the establishment or trying to create certain formulations or combinations of principles So they of course have a slightly different purpose But still I would like to if you don’t know of it yet actually at the University of Bremen There is another project that keeps track of these So Perhaps we might have at some point a very good interaction between the two different Initiatives where one is really focused on these terms of services and also tracking the changes over time And then ours which looks at these other kinds of documents. Yeah.

Dennis Redeker: Thank you for plugging that indeed the platform governance archive Dr. Orc to check it out as well It’s a super interesting question because we get this a lot and think a lot about All these submissions to the WSIS plus 20 process the GDC And different ways in which different stakeholders indeed spell out the rights and principles They think are important for digital age And so the question is how to integrate those kind of documents because they are massive in terms of the number They they are And that’s really one thing that we could at least consider if we have a more efficient more scalable way of coding those documents So that that’s certainly one thing we have in mind when when looking at the the use of LLMs or at least the collaboration between humans and LLMs and of course the coding process Great question Do you have any other questions in the back?

Audience: Thank you, thank you for this interesting presentation, I was wondering if maybe do you have like Local partners, or how do you validate some of the documents there are in the database for instance? I don’t know Sometimes some documents Might be or not binding or some documents might not be really Approved as something that for instance happens in Peru like there are a lot of Bill of Rights published in our governmental Platform but They are only drafts only that that’s not a specified. So I would like to know how was this process of Gathering information and having this validation of the of the nature of these documents. I

Dennis Redeker: Think one thing that’s important that we do is we we when we Input these documents into the database and when we code we have different codes for the years in which they were initially published The years in which we coded them so that you can go back and you can say well This this was a bill in 2011. It was passed in 2013 So you can at least go to the database and know they coded the 2011 version so that you know that you can be sure So that’s very important in doing that kind of validation work But absolutely, I think the updating is another thing right because documents that are more recent They will most likely have a development in them in the sense that there might be passed or there might be indeed also rescinded I mean thinking about You know US AI regulation and so on there could be there could be these kind of things going on and and elsewhere, too So I think that’s a that’s a great point We do have not we don’t really currently have like local partners in that sense. So this is a research project that is Mostly within the digital constitutional network. The network is quite global and its reach we do have members in most continents But we don’t have local teams in that sense So this is also one way in which working with civil society groups other researchers around the world would be quite useful Anyone really who wants to contribute so I’ll reach out about that Other questions comments There no other questions, okay, so thank you so much for coming to this launch check out the website That’s one more question So we have three minutes left so you please go ahead Apart from tracking the text do you try to track impact? We do not know. So what what kind of impact do you mean?

Audience: I have a question about the impact of the text and I’m not sure if that’s a good way to put it

Dennis Redeker: We do not know so what what kind of impact do you mean like how do

Audience: good good question lots of different ways to to measure that but The question that I always have in looking at these things is so what? Like what? Why did they matter who has used them? Have they been cited like I don’t know by a court or have they influenced legislation? I mean, maybe one thing that would be really interesting would be a tool maybe this is something that AI could help with that might track whether these ideas have been implemented in legislation or regulation or terms of service You could imagine showing that they matter by tracing the genealogy of ideas from these or between these

Marielle Wijermars: Absolutely. Thank you. Absolutely. So it’s a great question and great suggestion as well at the same time I think everyone here is aware that these are very complicated processes or especially the impact of civil society actors It’s very difficult to really determine But what’s one thing that the database does allow you to do is to try and trace back? When were certain ideas when did they first become prominent? So who were involved who were the first to use this kind of document to say this needs to become a principle? This needs to have this kind of global recognition So you are able to do that But if you would want to look at the actual impact Then you would have to indeed take on board these other kinds of documents as well Just like which says that was earlier mentioned and to try and triangulate all of those Which also means that you don’t have to focus on smaller chunks of time Since you would not be able to do that for the entire 30 years or that would be quite complicated Indeed where we move far beyond our human coders to be able to do that kind of research But I would absolutely think that maybe this is the first step we were able to see which are what are really the key moments in time where things changed and Who were involved in those changes and to then build new research projects around those?

Dennis Redeker: And I think maybe let me add that there’s two ways you can either do a qualitative Case study way so that you look at one document and its impact in other ways But using the database you can potentially indeed to text correlations and how do certain principles sound? Compared whether that actually helps you to do the kind of Results in terms of impact or find out the results in terms of impact is questionable I mean I have to have students who work on stuff and they look at like the GDC and what kind of documents might have impacted the GDC and by doing that just in a Language correlation is not necessarily giving you the answer because many of you have been involved in the GDC process I know it’s not just about all these documents submitted earlier, but I think The database is available to everyone and so researchers can use it for all kinds of applications Thank you. And I think now our time is up. Thank you so much for all these questions and the engagement Have a great conference and see you around You

Agreement points

Database limitations and need for improvement

Speakers

– Dennis Redeker
– Marielle Wijermars

Arguments

Current dataset only extends to two years ago and may miss non-English/European language documents

Future plans include extending timeline, experimenting with LLM coding to support human coders, and partnering with other organizations

Summary

Both speakers acknowledge the database’s current limitations in temporal coverage and language diversity, and agree on the need for future improvements including timeline extension and technological enhancements

Topics

Sociocultural | Development

Database serves multiple purposes for research and education

Speakers

– Dennis Redeker
– Marielle Wijermars

Arguments

Database serves as accessible tool for comparison, research, teaching, and reference for creating new principles

Database reveals diverse global actors including intergovernmental, civil society, and multi-stakeholder organizations

Summary

Both speakers emphasize the database’s value as a comprehensive tool for academic research, teaching, and practical applications in understanding digital rights governance

Topics

Sociocultural | Legal and regulatory

Complexity of measuring real-world impact

Speakers

– Dennis Redeker
– Marielle Wijermars

Arguments

Impact assessment requires qualitative case studies or text correlation analysis beyond current database scope

Database enables tracing genealogy of ideas and identifying key moments when principles became prominent

Summary

Both speakers acknowledge that while measuring actual impact is complex and beyond the current database scope, the database can serve as a foundation for understanding how ideas develop and spread over time

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights

Terms of service represent different document type with distinct purpose

Speakers

– Dennis Redeker
– Marielle Wijermars

Arguments

Consideration of integrating WSIS+20 and GDC submissions requires more scalable coding methods

Suggestion that terms of service differ in purpose from rights-creating documents currently in database

Summary

Both speakers agree that terms of service, while potentially relevant, serve a different purpose than the rights-creating documents currently in the database and would require different analytical approaches

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Similar viewpoints

All three speakers present a unified vision of the database as a comprehensive, user-friendly resource that captures the evolution of digital rights discourse over three decades

Speakers

– Dennis Redeker
– Marielle Wijermars
– Kiho Oshima

Arguments

Database contains over 300 digital bills of rights spanning 30+ years with diverse bindingness and authorship

Documents show increasing focus on AI in recent years, with peaks in production related to AI governance

Interface provides simple keyword search, advanced filtering, and codebook access for user-friendly navigation

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights | Development

Both speakers emphasize the constitutional nature and multi-stakeholder character of the documents in the database, highlighting their role in shaping global digital rights discourse

Speakers

– Dennis Redeker
– Marielle Wijermars

Arguments

Documents share constitutional language and rhetoric while addressing digital age rights and principles

Database reveals diverse global actors including intergovernmental, civil society, and multi-stakeholder organizations

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Unexpected consensus

Openness to community feedback and collaboration

Speakers

– Dennis Redeker
– Marielle Wijermars
– Kiho Oshima

Arguments

Future plans include extending timeline, experimenting with LLM coding to support human coders, and partnering with other organizations

Current dataset only extends to two years ago and may miss non-English/European language documents

Database supports multiple languages beyond English for comparative analysis

Explanation

Despite presenting a comprehensive database, all speakers showed remarkable openness to acknowledging limitations and actively seeking community input for improvements, which is unexpected for a project launch presentation

Topics

Sociocultural | Development

Acknowledgment of methodological limitations in academic research

Speakers

– Dennis Redeker
– Marielle Wijermars

Arguments

Validation process tracks initial publication and coding dates to ensure document version accuracy

Impact assessment requires qualitative case studies or text correlation analysis beyond current database scope

Explanation

Both speakers were surprisingly transparent about the methodological challenges and limitations of their research approach, openly discussing what their database cannot accomplish rather than overselling its capabilities

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Overall assessment

Summary

The speakers demonstrated strong consensus on the database’s value, its limitations, and future development needs. They agreed on its role as a comprehensive tool for research and education, acknowledged its current temporal and linguistic limitations, and recognized the complexity of measuring real-world impact of digital rights documents.

Consensus level

High level of consensus with collaborative approach to addressing limitations. The speakers showed unified vision for the project while being transparent about challenges, suggesting a mature and realistic approach to digital rights research that could enhance the credibility and adoption of their database in the academic and policy communities.

Different viewpoints

Inclusion of platform terms of service in database scope

Speakers

– Audience
– Marielle Wijermars

Arguments

Question about whether platform terms of service with constitutional language should be included in future versions

Suggestion that terms of service differ in purpose from rights-creating documents currently in database

Summary

Audience member suggested including platform terms of service that use constitutional language, while Marielle argued these serve a different purpose – translating existing legislation rather than creating new rights – and should remain separate from the current database focus

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Unexpected differences

Scope boundaries for digital constitutionalism documents

Speakers

– Audience
– Marielle Wijermars

Arguments

Question about whether platform terms of service with constitutional language should be included in future versions

Suggestion that terms of service differ in purpose from rights-creating documents currently in database

Explanation

This disagreement was unexpected because it revealed fundamental differences in how broadly ‘digital constitutionalism’ should be defined. The audience member’s suggestion to include terms of service challenged the project’s current conceptual boundaries, while the researchers maintained a more restrictive definition focused on rights-creating rather than rights-implementing documents

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion revealed limited but significant disagreements primarily around database scope, methodology for expansion, and impact measurement approaches

Disagreement level

Low to moderate disagreement level with constructive implications – disagreements were primarily methodological rather than fundamental, suggesting opportunities for collaboration and database enhancement rather than conflicting visions for the project’s core mission

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

All three speakers present a unified vision of the database as a comprehensive, user-friendly resource that captures the evolution of digital rights discourse over three decades

Speakers

– Dennis Redeker
– Marielle Wijermars
– Kiho Oshima

Arguments

Database contains over 300 digital bills of rights spanning 30+ years with diverse bindingness and authorship

Documents show increasing focus on AI in recent years, with peaks in production related to AI governance

Interface provides simple keyword search, advanced filtering, and codebook access for user-friendly navigation

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights | Development

Both speakers emphasize the constitutional nature and multi-stakeholder character of the documents in the database, highlighting their role in shaping global digital rights discourse

Speakers

– Dennis Redeker
– Marielle Wijermars

Arguments

Documents share constitutional language and rhetoric while addressing digital age rights and principles

Database reveals diverse global actors including intergovernmental, civil society, and multi-stakeholder organizations

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Key takeaways

The Digital Constitutionalism Network has successfully launched version 2 of their database containing over 300 digital bills of rights spanning 30+ years, coded for 58 substantive principles through comprehensive hand-coding

The database serves as a comprehensive, accessible tool for researchers, educators, and practitioners to compare documents, conduct research, and reference existing principles when creating new digital rights frameworks

Recent trends show increasing focus on AI governance, with many new documents specifically addressing AI-related rights and principles

The database reveals diverse global participation including intergovernmental organizations, civil society groups, and multi-stakeholder initiatives, though some regions remain underrepresented

The user-friendly interface allows for keyword searches, advanced filtering by multiple criteria, and provides direct links to source documents with exact location references for specific principles

The project demonstrates successful long-term collaboration involving multiple institutions and funding sources over 3-4 years

Resolutions and action items

Extend the database timeline to include documents from the past two years that are currently missing

Experiment with Large Language Model (LLM) coding to support and enhance human coding processes while benchmarking LLM effectiveness

Develop partnerships with other organizations for expanded database applications and uses

Collect feedback and suggestions from users to improve the database functionality

Create a list of missing documents identified by users for inclusion in future database versions

Consider integration with related projects like the University of Bremen’s platform governance archive

Unresolved issues

Whether to include platform terms of service that use constitutional language as they serve different purposes than rights-creating documents

How to efficiently validate document authenticity and track evolution from drafts to approved versions, especially for documents from different regions

How to scale the coding process to handle massive numbers of documents like WSIS+20 and GDC submissions

How to address language barriers and potential missed documents in non-English/non-European languages

How to effectively measure and track the real-world impact of these documents on legislation, regulation, and court decisions

How to establish local partnerships for better regional representation and document validation

Suggested compromises

Use LLM coding in collaboration with human coders rather than replacing human coding entirely

Focus impact assessment on smaller time chunks or specific case studies rather than attempting comprehensive impact analysis across all 30 years

Develop separate but potentially integrated databases for different types of documents (digital rights declarations vs. terms of service)

Combine qualitative case study approaches with quantitative text correlation analysis for impact assessment

Yeah, thanks a lot for the presentation Great resource. I think I was wondering if in the future We also see is that terms of service and platforms conditions also include to degree And increasingly so constitutional language as users will have the right to use our service for such-and-such Do you intend to see those as sort of documents of digital constitution in the future and will you then include them in a database as well

Speaker

Audience member

Reason

This comment is insightful because it challenges the boundaries of what constitutes ‘digital constitutionalism’ by pointing out that private platforms are increasingly using constitutional language in their terms of service. It highlights the blurring lines between traditional rights documents and corporate governance, suggesting that constitutional rhetoric is being adopted by private actors in ways that might warrant academic attention.

Impact

This comment significantly expanded the scope of the discussion beyond the current database to consider future directions. It prompted both presenters to engage deeply – Marielle acknowledged the complexity while noting the different purposes of terms of service versus rights declarations, and Dennis connected it to existing research (the platform governance archive) and their future plans for using LLMs for more scalable coding. The comment opened up a new avenue of thinking about document inclusion criteria and methodological challenges.

Apart from tracking the text do you try to track impact? […] The question that I always have in looking at these things is so what? Like what? Why did they matter who has used them? Have they been cited like I don’t know by a court or have they influenced legislation? […] maybe one thing that would be really interesting would be a tool maybe this is something that AI could help with that might track whether these ideas have been implemented in legislation or regulation or terms of service

Speaker

Audience member

Reason

This is perhaps the most challenging and thought-provoking comment in the entire discussion. It cuts to the heart of academic research relevance by asking the fundamental ‘so what?’ question. The speaker challenges the presenters to justify not just what they’re collecting, but whether it actually matters in real-world terms. The suggestion about AI-assisted impact tracking also introduces a sophisticated methodological possibility.

Impact

This comment created the most substantive exchange in the Q&A, forcing both presenters to grapple with the limitations of their current approach. Marielle acknowledged the complexity of measuring civil society impact while defending the database’s utility for tracing the genealogy of ideas. Dennis admitted the challenges of proving causation through text correlation alone, using the GDC process as an example. The comment elevated the discussion from technical database features to fundamental questions about research methodology and real-world relevance.

I was wondering if maybe do you have like Local partners, or how do you validate some of the documents there are in the database for instance? […] Sometimes some documents Might be or not binding or some documents might not be really Approved as something that for instance happens in Peru like there are a lot of Bill of Rights published in our governmental Platform but They are only drafts

Speaker

Audience member

Reason

This comment introduces crucial methodological concerns about data quality and validation. By using Peru as a specific example, the speaker highlights how the database might inadvertently misrepresent the status of documents, potentially treating drafts as enacted policies. This raises important questions about the reliability of the dataset for comparative research.

Impact

This comment led Dennis to explain their temporal coding system (tracking initial publication vs. passage dates) and acknowledge limitations in their validation processes. It also highlighted the need for local partnerships and expertise, which Dennis admitted they currently lack. The comment shifted the conversation toward methodological transparency and the challenges of maintaining data quality across diverse political and legal contexts.

Overall assessment

These key comments fundamentally elevated the discussion from a technical presentation about database features to a sophisticated examination of methodological challenges and research impact. The audience questions pushed the presenters beyond their comfort zone, forcing them to confront limitations in scope (what documents to include), validation (how to ensure accuracy), and relevance (whether the research matters). Rather than defensive responses, the presenters engaged thoughtfully with these challenges, acknowledging limitations while articulating the value of their work. The comments collectively transformed what could have been a routine database demonstration into a meaningful dialogue about the complexities of studying digital constitutionalism, the challenges of measuring civil society impact, and the evolving boundaries between public and private governance in the digital age.

Should terms of service and platform conditions that increasingly include constitutional language be considered documents of digital constitutionalism and included in the database?

Speaker

Audience member

Explanation

This explores the boundaries of what constitutes digital constitutionalism and whether commercial platform policies should be treated as constitutional documents when they use rights-based language

How can the database be updated more efficiently and scalably, particularly for massive numbers of documents like WSIS plus 20 submissions and GDC contributions?

Speaker

Dennis Redeker

Explanation

This addresses the challenge of keeping the database current and comprehensive while managing the volume of new digital rights documents being produced

How can LLMs be effectively used to enhance and support human coders in qualitative coding work, and how do different LLMs perform in this benchmarking process?

Speaker

Dennis Redeker

Explanation

This explores the technical methodology for scaling up the coding process while maintaining quality and accuracy

How can local partners be established to validate documents and ensure accuracy of their legal status and binding nature?

Speaker

Audience member

Explanation

This addresses the need for ground-truth validation of documents’ actual legal status and implementation, particularly distinguishing between drafts and enacted legislation

How can the impact of these digital bills of rights be tracked and measured, including their influence on legislation, regulation, court decisions, and terms of service?

Speaker

Audience member

Explanation

This addresses the fundamental question of whether and how these documents actually influence policy and legal frameworks, moving beyond documentation to impact assessment

How can AI tools be developed to trace the genealogy of ideas from digital bills of rights into actual implemented legislation or regulation?

Speaker

Audience member

Explanation

This suggests a technological solution for tracking the real-world influence and implementation of principles articulated in digital rights documents

How can underrepresented regions be better included in the database, and what documents might be missing due to language barriers?

Speaker

Dennis Redeker

Explanation

This addresses potential bias in the database toward English and European language documents, and the need for more global representation

How can the database be integrated with other related projects like the platform governance archive at University of Bremen?

Speaker

Marielle Wijermars

Explanation

This explores potential synergies between different databases tracking digital governance documents to create more comprehensive research tools