Big Tech

The story behind AI community Hugging Face: Professor Erkko Autio co-authors article in The European Business Review

Evie Burrows-Taylor — Mon, 03 Feb 2025 10:53:54 +0000

The story behind AI community Hugging Face: Professor Erkko Autio co-authors article in The European Business Review Evie Burrows-Taylor Mon, 03/02/2025 - 10:53

23 January 2025

Technology

Big Tech

Listen: The Standard’s Tech and Science Daily podcast interviews Dr Mark Kennedy on the US supreme court’s TikTok ban

Evie Burrows-Taylor — Mon, 20 Jan 2025 11:43:18 +0000

Listen: The Standard’s Tech and Science Daily podcast interviews Dr Mark Kennedy on the US supreme court’s TikTok ban Evie Burrows-Taylor Mon, 20/01/2025 - 11:43

15 January 2025

Digital transformation

Big Tech

Policy

Politics

Does the internet put people off vaccines?

Carol Propper — Wed, 11 Dec 2024 09:39:47 +0000

Does the internet put people off vaccines?

Carol Propper Wed, 11/12/2024 - 09:39

13 April 2026 Knowledge

Expert Q&A: Henry Dimbleby on the hidden ways ultra-processed foods harm our health and why the government must act now

20 March 2026 Knowledge

'Boomerasking': How to break the annoying habit hurting your workplace relationships

12 March 2026 Knowledge

Who decided what ambition looks like?

Measuring impact on vaccine uptake

Gauging this is challenging. Previous research suggests online information has a positive impact on vaccine uptake rates, but this is difficult to prove. As internet access is pretty much ubiquitous in most developed economies, there is not a large enough group of internet non-users to compare against.

To examine this further, our research looks back to the early 2000s, when home internet was still being rolled out. This allows us to explore the effects of online information by comparing the behaviour of those with access and those without, as well as the impact of socioeconomic factors such as deprivation and education levels.

It’s vital we have a proper understanding of the net effect of online information on attitudes to vaccines

Specifically, we look at how online information affected uptake of the vaccine against measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) between 2000 and 2011 – the most rapid period of growth in internet access. A 1998 study, which was found to be false and later retracted, linked the MMR vaccine to autism in children, causing a decline in vaccine uptake and a general rise in vaccine hesitancy.

But did the online spread of information, at least in part, facilitate this effect? To test this, we compared vaccination rates in children aged 0-1 and 0-5 against gradually rising internet access across our time range. The results show that internet access did decrease MMR vaccine uptake. Specifically, we found that a 25 per cent increase in internet penetration reduced vaccination rates in children aged 0-1 and 0-5 by 23.8 per cent and 19.1 per cent respectively.

Demographic differences

However, this effect is not consistent across society, as we know internet access is not random. In general, vaccination uptake is higher in less deprived areas with a higher proportion of high-skilled individuals. These areas also tended to gain internet access earlier, and we found that access to the internet is more likely to reduce vaccine uptake in these areas, compared with more deprived, less highly educated areas.

The impact is significant: our results show that a 25 per cent increase in internet access in the most affluent areas in the UK caused a 22.4 per cent reduction in the vaccination rate for children aged 0-5. This is compared to an average decline across all areas of 19 per cent – in other words, the overall response to an increase in internet access in more affluent areas is approximately 3.4 per cent larger than the average.

Societal effect

This is consistent with what we know about people’s behaviour more broadly – that greater online access exposes them to great quantities of potentially misleading information, and that this information is more understandable to those who are more highly educated. Our findings also match what we know about attitudes to parenting, with wealthier parents tending to be the first to take action that they perceive to be protective of their children.

Interestingly, however, there is evidence to suggest that internet access might have different effects in different countries. In Indonesia, for example, access to 3G broadband was found to have reduced COVID cases by approximately 45 per cent, with a more pronounced effect on those with higher education levels. While this is not specific to vaccine uptake (or the lack thereof), it highlights that the impact of online information is complex.

The results show that internet access did decrease MMR vaccine uptake

The findings reported here are specific to the UK. They demonstrate that here, at least, increasing access to the internet has led to decreases in vaccination rates. Changing this state of affairs could be key to preparing society to better deal with future health crises.

That means interventions from social media platforms, public health campaigns, and access to high-quality health information will be vital in getting a positive, factually accurate message out both quickly and widely. Combining these approaches, through policy and investment, will give us the best chance of overcoming health misinformation.

This article draws on findings from "Information and Vaccine Hesitancy: The Role of Broadband Internet" by Sofia Amaral-Garcia (Université Libre De Bruxelles), Mattia Nardotto (Université Libre De Bruxelles), Carol Propper (51�Թ�� London) and Tommaso Valletti (51�Թ�� London).

Big Tech

Health

Healthcare management and policy

Research Centre

Centre for Health Economics & Policy Innovation

Knowledge Categories

Health

Academic area

Economics & Public Policy

Vaccines have saved millions of lives, but how has the rise of the internet affected their uptake? And what does this mean for society?

Main image: simplehappyart/iStock via Getty Images Plus

4 minute read

La Repubblica interviews Professor Tommaso Valletti on the US vs Google landmark antitrust case

Evie Burrows-Taylor — Mon, 19 Aug 2024 10:32:43 +0000

La Repubblica interviews Professor Tommaso Valletti on the US vs Google landmark antitrust case Evie Burrows-Taylor Mon, 19/08/2024 - 10:32

6 August 2024

Digital transformation

Can anyone topple X (the platform formerly known as Twitter)?

Andre Veiga — Tue, 29 Aug 2023 10:12:18 +0000

Can anyone topple X (the platform formerly known as Twitter)?

Andre Veiga Tue, 29/08/2023 - 10:12

29 August 2023

Elon Musk's controversial reign at Twitter, renamed X after his takeover, has been well documented – and yet, the brand survives. Here, we take a look at why competitors like Threads are struggling to match its success.

X has two fundamental advantages that maintain its position as the incumbent king of its corner of the social media jungle. Firstly, it delivers a valuable service that users can't find anywhere else. It's where you go to find out what happened seconds ago on the other side of the world. It's a live news feed, harnessing the views of a community as diverse as Barack Obama and Mrs Smith from Dagenham.

Secondly, it demonstrates the power of networks. Any successful social media platform needs a large, active community to generate content and engagement. Like the best parties, once it is able to attract enough users, it becomes an irresistible magnet with easy subsequent growth.

The first platform to achieve such scale often then becomes an incumbent that is hard to dislodge. Many have tried to oust X from its top spot, most notably and recently Threads, but incumbency advantage is a strong hand.

The social media dilemma

What did Threads do wrong, or what should it have done to guarantee success? It had the makings of a solid rival to X, particularly at a time when many Twitter users were feeling alienated and the site was losing advertising revenue. Threads had the opportunity to exploit Meta’s user base and related data. It had the funds to develop an effective competitive platform.

Yet Threads has been failing miserably and fast, going from tens of millions of users in the first week to a paltry eight million users within a month. Of course, externally validated user figures are at best an approximation – what counts is time on the platform and engagement, not how many Instagram users have a Threads icon on their account (these were added by default and don't necessarily reflect engagement).

Musk has behaved like an engineer, experimenting wildly with staff, features, and anything else he can get his hands on

Mark Zuckerberg saw an opportunity to launch Threads as an antidote to the perceived toxicity of X, promoting it as a positive and creative space that would foster community. Brands were encouraged to adopt a personable, casual, relatable tone in their posts, making them fun and human. It's a sad indictment of human nature that people seemingly don't want that.

Many early users of Threads described the experience as stilted and boring. The fact is that the often controversial environment of X keeps users engaged, ultimately adding to the platform’s bottom line. Therein lies a social dilemma – how do we, as a society, create a business model that provides all the benefits of social media, with none of the toxicity, addiction, depression and disinformation.

Strategic mistakes

Threads also failed when it came to implementing the features that made Twitter so successful in the first place. There were no hashtags allowing users to follow topics, it launched in the US before sorting out European GDPR compliance (thereby reducing its potential user base), and users were unable to direct message one another. It also failed to scale quickly enough (entering a platform market is a sprint not a marathon!), or to create a limited window for users to switch from X to Threads – paradoxically, the longer the door remains open for individuals to switch, the less likely they are to do so and the greater the incumbency advantage.

So despite Musk’s seemingly chaotic handling of Twitter, it has survived, and the users it has lost were probably marginal users anyway, rather than those who read and post to X intensively. Musk has behaved like an engineer, experimenting wildly with staff, features, and anything else he can get his hands on. There is a chance he will find a change that improves the experience of users, or improves his bottom line. In the meantime, the chaos doesn't seem to have damaged X that much.

Many early users of Threads described the experience as stilted and boring

Looking at other social media platforms, there are few successful challenges against an incumbent market leader. Perhaps the best example is Facebook's annihilation of MySpace. Since then, Facebook has tried many times, with Lasso (a TikTok challenger), Hobbi (a Pinterest challenger) and now Threads (an X challenger), and never once matched its MySpace story.

And so we get to the nub of it. The blend of a high value product and the network effect of scale provide a giant wall of obstacles for a competitor like Threads to climb before it can successfully topple X off its social media perch. So, can it be done? One thing is for sure: it will require more than Zuckerberg's current strategy to counter the impact of X's incumbency advantage.

Monthly newsletter

Receive the latest insights from 51�Թ�� Business School

Why did Google+ fail?

Despite offering an arguably better experience, Google’s social network failed to unseat Facebook. Dr Andre Veiga examines why, and what it tells us about how social media users deal with choice.

Download PDF

Academic area

Economics & Public Policy

Knowledge Categories

Entrepreneurship & Innovation

Experimentation in business: 3 ways to avoid the hidden risks

Tim Weiss — Fri, 02 Jun 2023 10:56:57 +0000

Experimentation in business: 3 ways to avoid the hidden risks

Tim Weiss Fri, 02/06/2023 - 10:56

2 June 2023

Experimentation is key to platforms improving their services – but this is often carried out in secret and can have disastrous unintended consequences

How many of us know when we are the subjects of digital experimentation? Probably very few. But if you use platforms such as LinkedIn, Uber or Zoom, it is highly likely you have been part of digital experiments to improve their products and services.

In 2018, Uber’s data science and engineering team publicly announced: “Experimentation is at the core of how Uber improves the customer experience... There are over 1,000 experiments running on our platform at any given time.”

Experimentation is a practice that has developed alongside digital technologies and platforms. Although in some ways it mirrors more traditional face-to-face market research with consumers, users or employees, digital technologies such as data analytics and machine learning now make the process of testing improvements or new offerings easier, quicker and cheaper, particularly on sophisticated platforms with large volumes of users.

By removing worker consent and making experimentation hidden, undesirable consequences can emerge

Experimentation has increased exponentially over the past decade, with entrepreneurs using it to guide their value creation, and digital platforms deploying thousands of experiments at any given time to optimise their algorithms. A case in point is LinkedIn, which subjected 20 million workers to thousands of experiments without their knowledge over a five-year period, impacting their ability to get a job.

We now know a lot about how to design experiments, and their benefit to the organisations that employ them, but what do we know about their impact on platform users? Experimentation and testing can be beneficial if users consent to experiments and platforms take their feedback seriously, by subsequently improving platform features and processes. But is this always the case? Is it always beneficial to both platform and user, or do both parties face hidden risks?

To explore this further, we looked at one of the world’s largest labour platforms over more than a decade of operation. We found that the platform experimented in three different ways. They first allowed users to consent and opt-in to experiments. They then switched to concealing experimentation, assigning users to experiment and control conditions without their knowledge and consent. In the final iteration, they began to consistently experiment on a wide variety of platform features at the same time, without user consent or knowledge.

It is very easy for experimentation to become more covert and concealed

Concealed experimentation had far-reaching effects on users. They witnessed constant changes that affected their employment and income opportunities on the platform, reducing the freedom they had in structuring their own work. What's more, concealed and consistent experimentation led to significant frustration and feelings of apathy because users had no agency in their exposure to experiments. There was often no redress when features and processes changed without notice.

We also found that workers’ wellbeing was negatively impacted as they started to believe that the platform no longer treated them as valued constituents or stakeholders, but as lab rats or guinea pigs. This is particularly concerning, not least because the ethics that might apply in more traditional testing methodologies seem to be largely absent in these circumstances. Although wide-scale experimentation is currently confined to platforms where it is an extremely cost-effective means of optimising algorithms, it is reasonable to assume the practice will extend beyond this as digital transformation continues in more conventional organisations.

Many organisations, participating in experimentation as a core feature to optimise value creation, may be unaware of these hidden risks. We recommend three actions:

1. Be transparent

It is very easy for experimentation to become more covert and concealed. Often, it is a well-intended practice to improve the design of experiments. But by removing worker consent and making experimentation hidden, undesirable consequences can emerge, whether a negative impact on user welfare or a potentially damaged relationship between the user and the platform. This is especially problematic in a competitive market where the cost of switching is low and users can vote with their feet.

2. Create internal mechanisms to build ethics into experimentation

There is precedent that internal audit units can enable experimentation without exposing users to unwanted side effects. Organisations such as Microsoft have created internal ethics, audit and compliance boards to oversee the implementation of new practices. These internal units provide the opportunity for a diverse group of stakeholders to routinely interact, exchange experiences and voice concerns. Crucially this requires users and platform managers and designers to come together and make their positions known, negotiating outcomes that are mutually beneficial.

3. Help to create "best practice" industry standards

It is in the interests of digital platforms, think tanks and research centres to lead the creation of best practice standards. This would allow platforms to enhance value creation through experimentation whilst simultaneously safeguarding user rights and avoiding adverse side effects. Shedding light on the grey zone of experimentation will help set industry standards and create a broader conversation about optimal experimentation practices that would also enable auditing of external oversight bodies.

This article draws on findings from "The Experimental Hand: How Platform-Based Experimentation Reconfigures Worker Autonomy" by Hatim A. Rahman (Kellogg School of Management), Tim Weiss (51�Թ��) and Arvind Karunakaran (Stanford University).

Digital transformation

Monthly newsletter

Receive the latest insights from 51�Թ�� Business School

The dark side of startups: when "fake it till you make it" goes wrong

Does startup culture make these ventures more vulnerable to misconduct and fraud? Dr Tim Weiss asks whether more oversight may be required

Download PDF

Academic area

Management & Entrepreneurship

Knowledge Categories

Entrepreneurship & Innovation

"It’s time to fight the tech titans": Follow the Money profiles "maverick economist" Professor Tommaso Valletti

Evie Burrows-Taylor — Wed, 07 Dec 2022 11:29:42 +0000

"It’s time to fight the tech titans": Follow the Money profiles "maverick economist" Professor Tommaso Valletti Evie Burrows-Taylor Wed, 07/12/2022 - 11:29

27 November 2022

Digital transformation

Competition

Big Tech

Why did Google+ fail?

Andre Veiga — Fri, 23 Sep 2022 14:53:12 +0000

Why did Google+ fail?

Andre Veiga Fri, 23/09/2022 - 14:53

3 October 2022

Despite offering an arguably better experience, Google’s social network failed to unseat Facebook. Dr Andre Veiga examines why, and what it tells us about how social media users deal with choice

If you told students the same class was on down the hall, but with free pizza and coffee, they would up sticks and move without being asked twice. But why don’t we show the same mobility when it comes to social networks? Even if there might be a better experience on offer, people tend to stay put.

Consider the example of Google+, the tech giant’s attempt at a social network to rival Facebook. It launched in 2011, only to struggle over the years to acquire users, despite offering, as some argued, a better experience. Google finally consigned it to the corporate graveyard in 2019. This illustrates the advantage of established technology networks with the lion’s share of users: they retain the upper hand. Economists call this “incumbency advantage”.

This incumbency advantage of tech giants unsettles regulators and arguably makes for a poorer experience for individuals. If incumbent platforms know they are unlikely to lose users, they have little incentive to charge low prices and provide high quality.

How big is the incumbency advantage?

Why are individuals so reluctant to leave an established social network, even if there’s something better over the way? Some attribute Facebook’s staying power to Mark Zuckerberg’s talents, the superiority of the product, or better data. We have used a mathematical model to shed additional light on this question; our model allows us to understand how much better a new network must be before users choose to leave the incumbent platform. Or in other words, how much incumbency advantage matters.

One crucial feature of platform markets that we are considering is that people enjoy being where others are (what economists call “network effects”). Individuals enjoy using Facebook because lots of other people also use that network – people want to remain in the same network as each other.

Our model shows how these network effects make it unlikely individuals will leave an incumbent network. Imagine, for instance, a user debating whether she should switch from Facebook to Google+. Perhaps Google+ is better in terms of speed and user interface, but – as one unkind commentator described – the experience is like a tumbleweed blowing through the desert. This means she will delay moving to Google+ and continue using Facebook, knowing she can switch at any time. If all users make the same decision, no one ever switches to Google+.

Users behave like a large group of pedestrians trying to cross a busy road. In dribs and drabs or one at a time, they are unlikely to risk it. They’re far more likely to be successful if they’re inspired to cross together. Everyone ends up staying on the same side of the road, waiting for someone to take the first step. The same will hold true for moving social networks, according to our model. This reluctance to switch is perfectly rational from an individual viewpoint, but it ends up harming the group as a whole.

Guidance for regulators on social media

Surprisingly, our model shows the more opportunities there are to switch platforms, the less likely it becomes that individuals will make the move. Suppose an individual only remembers to check Google+ once a year. If she doesn’t switch at that time, and Google+ becomes extremely popular, she might miss out on the advantages of the new network for an entire year. Suppose now that individual checks every hour. She’ll then be extremely comfortable with delaying a decision since she can change her mind soon. Paradoxically, more frequent chances to migrate can increase incumbency advantage.

Our model yielded another insight: the more opportunity people have to be on several platforms at once (commonly known as “multi-homing”), the more likely they are to migrate across platforms. Multi-homing makes it less costly to take that initial step, because you can be in two or more places at once. Our model highlights the positive impact of multi-homing on competition. Regulators should keep in mind the importance of features such as data portability among platforms, or the ability to conduct business on different platforms.

Interestingly, our theory shows too that, if platforms can commit in advance to limiting numbers who may sign up, this too spurs individuals to join. Fear of missing out may be a strong motivation: there’s a risk they won’t be able to move again in the future if the new platform has reached capacity.

Regulating competition among social media platforms

Previously, authorities have acted mostly on intuition in the absence of an accurate means to assess the impact of proposed mergers and the circumstances that competitors require to thrive. Our model goes some way to providing antitrust regulators with the tools to assess and quantify the advantages held by established social platforms.

We also go some way to assessing just how much better a new platform needs to be to entice users to join. As we’ve seen in the case of Google+, offering only slight improvements in some areas just isn’t enough to win people over, given the large incumbency advantage.

Big tech companies may throw up their arms at the prospect of regulation and argue competition is “only one click away”, but our model begins to show such arguments don’t account for network effects (which lead people to delay moving platform) and reveals the competitive advantage that gives incumbent platforms.

This article draws on findings from "Should I Stay or Should I Go? Migrating Away from an Incumbent Platform" by Gary Biglaiser (University of North Carolina), Jacques Crémer (Toulouse School of Economics) and André Veiga (51�Թ�� London).

Digital transformation

Monthly newsletter

Receive the latest insights from 51�Թ�� Business School

Restarting the future: why the intangible economy isn’t working and how we can fix it

The failure of financial institutions to keep up with the rise of the intangible economy has led to economic disappointment across the developed world. So, why has this happened, and what do we do now?

Download PDF

Academic area

Economics & Public Policy

Knowledge Categories

Strategy & Leadership

Bloomberg quotes Professor Tommaso Valletti on enforcing antitrust rules

Evie Burrows-Taylor — Mon, 08 Aug 2022 15:09:04 +0000

Bloomberg quotes Professor Tommaso Valletti on enforcing antitrust rules Evie Burrows-Taylor Mon, 08/08/2022 - 15:09

2 August 2022

Digital transformation

Big Tech

Competition

"Post-Brexit Britain will have to do better than this to curb the power of big tech": The Guardian mentions Professor Tommaso Valletti

Evie Burrows-Taylor — Mon, 07 Dec 2020 16:46:10 +0000

"Post-Brexit Britain will have to do better than this to curb the power of big tech": The Guardian mentions Professor Tommaso Valletti Evie Burrows-Taylor Mon, 07/12/2020 - 16:46

2 December 2020

Digital transformation

Big Tech

Big Tech

The story behind AI community Hugging Face: Professor Erkko Autio co-authors article in The European Business Review

Share

Listen: The Standard’s Tech and Science Daily podcast interviews Dr Mark Kennedy on the US supreme court’s TikTok ban

Share

Does the internet put people off vaccines?

Does the internet put people off vaccines?

Expert Q&A: Henry Dimbleby on the hidden ways ultra-processed foods harm our health and why the government must act now

'Boomerasking': How to break the annoying habit hurting your workplace relationships

Who decided what ambition looks like?

Measuring impact on vaccine uptake

Demographic differences

Societal effect

Share

Vaccines have saved millions of lives, but how has the rise of the internet affected their uptake? And what does this mean for society?

La Repubblica interviews Professor Tommaso Valletti on the US vs Google landmark antitrust case

Share

Can anyone topple X (the platform formerly known as Twitter)?

Elon Musk's controversial reign at Twitter, renamed X after his takeover, has been well documented – and yet, the brand survives. Here, we take a look at why competitors like Threads are struggling to match its success.

The social media dilemma

Strategic mistakes

Monthly newsletter

Why did Google+ fail?

Experimentation in business: 3 ways to avoid the hidden risks

Experimentation is key to platforms improving their services – but this is often carried out in secret and can have disastrous unintended consequences

1. Be transparent

2. Create internal mechanisms to build ethics into experimentation

3. Help to create "best practice" industry standards

Monthly newsletter

The dark side of startups: when "fake it till you make it" goes wrong

"It’s time to fight the tech titans": Follow the Money profiles "maverick economist" Professor Tommaso Valletti

Share

Why did Google+ fail?

Despite offering an arguably better experience, Google’s social network failed to unseat Facebook. Dr Andre Veiga examines why, and what it tells us about how social media users deal with choice

How big is the incumbency advantage?

Guidance for regulators on social media

Regulating competition among social media platforms

Monthly newsletter

Restarting the future: why the intangible economy isn’t working and how we can fix it

Bloomberg quotes Professor Tommaso Valletti on enforcing antitrust rules

Share

"Post-Brexit Britain will have to do better than this to curb the power of big tech": The Guardian mentions Professor Tommaso Valletti

Share