Issue Brief

This blog will be an overview of topics I am considering to write about in my Issue Brief, which is an advocacy piece for a certain approach towards current policies or policy reform.

The first issue I would like to address is the idea of tailored social media algorithms and how they’ve affected peoples’ understanding of current events. I am interested in this issue since I have a Computer Science background and like discussing the ethics behind software like algorithms or artificial intelligence.

Companies like Facebook or Google, in the interest of curating a feed focused on your interests, also limit viewpoints and information to those similar to ones you agree with and provide favorable reactions to. This limits people’s understandings of issues within society, and could dangerously lead to misinformation as these algorithms are known for promoting.

Many scholars and sociologists have discussed this problem or similar problems before, but I have not really seen change or response from social media companies. So, I wish to provide a concrete, feasible policy reform/plan to actually obtain results on the matter. I identify the cause of this issue a mechanical one, as the algorithms work as the companies intended it to, but it’s effects are becoming more dangerous in today’s partisan society.

The exigence that this issue comes from is the dangerous spread of misinformation and the increasingly partisan mindsets of Americans. While there are many factors that lead to both of these, tailored algorithms have become a forefront problem due to its relevancy amongst all with a digital profile.

The scope of this issue would include all who use online media to gather news or information from platforms like Facebook or Google. Thus, it is quite large. Thankfully, the main issue lies with the algorithm itself, not so much with every individual, a benefit (and downside) of our networked world.

I have a few options in terms of the level of jurisdiction I would want to target for this issue. If I were to suggest an industry-wide restriction, I could take this to the federal level, although that would be a slow and less than ideal process, with less guarantees of success. I could also take this to company boards instead; however, I would need to rework my plan to include some benefit for the company, either in profits or user loyalty.

To make it a little easier, I could turn it from a mandate to an inducement, and suggest a system that favors algorithms that are open to the users and allow them to keep algorithm bias out of their information sources. To garner support for the policy, I would begin with a “capacity builder” approach to inform more people about these issues and why we need some sort of restriction policy.

 

Another issue I could pursue for my brief is how increasing wait-times for face-to-face mental health treatment is preventing college students with a serious need for help from obtaining the support they need. I find this issue interesting as my solution is software-based, and I think more people should be brought to attention on finding ways to solve it.

We can see this same problem in Penn State CAPS. It’s nearly impossible to get an appointment without weeks, or even months, of advance scheduling, an issue that is completely unacceptable for the vast amounts of college students suffering from real problems that evolve or change all the time. Some students can afford a third party clinic, but the majority cannot, and with the first ten sessions of CAPS free, it’s extremely beneficial for those who are really suffering and happen to have “money” as one of the problems they are stressing over.

I would be intervening in this issue as I have not seen much progress on alleviating it. I have talked to one of the lead doctors in CAPS, and they said there’s no way to reduce the time they need for each patient, thus the only way to meet more people would be to have more clinicians. Thus, I aim on changing this from an issue of capacity to one of preferability.

The exigence of this issue is the immense percentage of college students with mental health problems, and the lack of support they receive even with four-year universities providing funding for programs and services like Penn State has. The scope for the brief would include college students, as I feel this policy would most resonate/benefit with them.

The issue’s cause is most likely a mechanical one, as mental health practices work the way they should, but still result in the problems defined above. Thus, rather than trying to disrupt the system, which would require an immense amount of research considering how complicated the mental health space is, I would propose a sort of inducement solution involving technology.

Rather than agreeing to provide anyone with face-to-face appointments, patients should first utilize an app or software that tracks their mental health over a set time period to determine their need for clinical service. Most patients who request service can be treated through a form of self-care administered by apps using AI to track schedules and journals for moods and activities or games to assist in recovery and thinking positively, a major aspect of cognitive-behavioral therapy. These same apps can also be used to determine the severity of a patient’s problem and whether it can assist them or they may need to be referred to a clinician.

I know CAPS uses a service called WellTrack for self-care and offers it to those who are waiting, but it currently does not help determine who is in most need of face-to-face service.

Thus, by incentivizing psychological services in first using apps like these to decrease the number of people in the waiting list and keeping only those who really need it, everyone can find the treatment that best suits them.