• Skip to main content
  • Skip to secondary menu
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
Montreal AI Ethics Institute

Montreal AI Ethics Institute

Democratizing AI ethics literacy

  • Articles
    • Public Policy
    • Privacy & Security
    • Human Rights
      • Ethics
      • JEDI (Justice, Equity, Diversity, Inclusion
    • Climate
    • Design
      • Emerging Technology
    • Application & Adoption
      • Health
      • Education
      • Government
        • Military
        • Public Works
      • Labour
    • Arts & Culture
      • Film & TV
      • Music
      • Pop Culture
      • Digital Art
  • Columns
    • AI Policy Corner
    • Recess
    • Tech Futures
  • The AI Ethics Brief
  • AI Literacy
    • Research Summaries
    • AI Ethics Living Dictionary
    • Learning Community
  • The State of AI Ethics Report
    • Volume 7 (November 2025)
    • Volume 6 (February 2022)
    • Volume 5 (July 2021)
    • Volume 4 (April 2021)
    • Volume 3 (Jan 2021)
    • Volume 2 (Oct 2020)
    • Volume 1 (June 2020)
  • About
    • Our Contributions Policy
    • Our Open Access Policy
    • Contact
    • Donate

Research summary: PolicyKit: Building Governance in Online Communities

August 17, 2020

Summary contributed by our researcher Muriam Fancy, who works at CIFAR and is pursuing a Master’s in Markets & Innovation at University of Toronto’s Munk School of Global Affairs & Public Policy.

*Authors of full paper & link at the bottom


Mini-summary: Online communities have various forms of governance, which generally include a permission-based model. Although these governance models do work in theory, these models caused the admin/moderator to burn out, lack legitimacy of the platform, and the governance model itself cannot evolve. The need for alternative governance models for online communities is necessary. Different types of governance models were tested on other platforms such as LambdaMOO – which shifted from a dictatorship (governed by “wizards”) to a petition model that involved voting and wizards implemented the outcome of the votes.

Wikipedia and its openness for multiple contributors also faced a series of conflicts such as processing petitions and voting to solve disputes. But again, it was left to the admins to address these issues, a very manual and labor-intensive process. This report aims to present “PolicyKit” as a software platform that allows and empowers online communities to “concisely author” governance procedures on their home platforms. The analysis of PolicyKit is done based on being able to carry out actions and policies such as random jury deliberation, and a multistage caucus.

Full summary:

Online community governance models are often incapable of evolving; if they are to change, the methods to do so are quite labor-intensive. Online communities are defined as gatherings on platforms such as Slack, Reddit subreddits, Facebook groups, and mailing lists. Governance for these online communities includes roles and permissions. A role and permission based governance model dictates who can join the group and guides decisions about the type of content that can be broadcasted. This model of roles and permission is based on UNIX file permission models on almost all big community platforms. However, these governance models are not flexible to alternative forms of governance. Because of the lack of flexibility, communities are forced to solve their problems with moderated communities, which can lead to moderators facing burn out, new communities’ members being overwhelmed, and reduced legitimacy. This exact problem is what the software “PolicyKit” solves.

The goal of PolicyKit is for online communities to develop and deploy their governance models that include flexible governance policy code that is inspired, borrowed, or altered from other online communities. This can be accomplished form the two main functions of PolicyKit’s infrastructure:

  1. Software library for users to learn how to write their policies in code.
  2. A server that can process and execute policies “against actions” within the community.
  3. Integration of PolicyKit on the platform to know when actions have been performed in the past.
  4. And finally, access to a website where community members can propose new actions to change the governance model and create new policies in the code editor.

As mentioned previously, a significant issue that this platform solves is to change governance from permissions to procedures, where procedures can allow for alternative forms of governance such as participatory and democratic models. Furthermore, since these actions require a short amount of code that can be inputted by community members, new policies and governance models can evolve faster. Changing the platform’s governance system is possible through two main abstractions that PolicyKit provides, which are actions and policies. Actions are a one-time occurrence within a community that is proposed by a community member. In comparison, policy governs a user’s experience and can govern more than one action. Before a user submits an action, the policy must approve the action itself. 

Thus, the platform can function in the following process: a) there must be a platform integration for the community home platform, b) every community hosted on that platform is now able to use PolicyKit, c) once PolicyKit is installed to the community platform, an initial governance system is installed- this governance system is a constitution policy model, d) community members can now propose actions, e) the policy engine continues to review actions to see if they can or cannot occur, f) when the action passes, it is deployed via the PolicyKit server. Finally, PolicyKit has a detailed and secure infrastructure that attempts to secure the accuracy of the policies and test policies before deployment to reduce the risk that can be posed to the community.


Original paper by Amy X. Zhang, Grant Hugh, Michael S. Bernstein: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2008.04236.pdf

Want quick summaries of the latest research & reporting in AI ethics delivered to your inbox? Subscribe to the AI Ethics Brief. We publish bi-weekly.

Primary Sidebar

🔍 SEARCH

Spotlight

A rock embedded with intricate circuit board patterns, held delicately by pale hands drawn in a ghostly style. The contrast between the rough, metallic mineral and the sleek, artificial circuit board illustrates the relationship between raw natural resources and modern technological development. The hands evoke human involvement in the extraction and manufacturing processes.

Tech Futures: The Fossil Fuels Playbook for Big Tech: Part I

Close-up of a cat sleeping on a computer keyboard

Tech Futures: The threat of AI-generated code to the world’s digital infrastructure

The undying sun hangs in the sky, as people gather around signal towers, working through their digital devices.

Dreams and Realities in Modi’s AI Impact Summit

Illustration of a coral reef ecosystem

Tech Futures: Diversity of Thought and Experience: The UN’s Scientific Panel on AI

This image shows a large white, traditional, old building. The top half of the building represents the humanities (which is symbolised by the embedded text from classic literature which is faintly shown ontop the building). The bottom section of the building is embossed with mathematical formulas to represent the sciences. The middle layer of the image is heavily pixelated. On the steps at the front of the building there is a group of scholars, wearing formal suits and tie attire, who are standing around at the enternace talking and some of them are sitting on the steps. There are two stone, statute-like hands that are stretching the building apart from the left side. In the forefront of the image, there are 8 students - which can only be seen from the back. Their graduation gowns have bright blue hoods and they all look as though they are walking towards the old building which is in the background at a distance. There are a mix of students in the foreground.

Tech Futures: Co-opting Research and Education

related posts

  • NATO Artificial Intelligence Strategy

    NATO Artificial Intelligence Strategy

  • A Virtue-Based Framework to Support Putting AI Ethics into Practice

    A Virtue-Based Framework to Support Putting AI Ethics into Practice

  • The Ethical AI Startup Ecosystem 02: Data for AI

    The Ethical AI Startup Ecosystem 02: Data for AI

  • From AI Winter to AI Hype: The Story of AI in Montreal

    From AI Winter to AI Hype: The Story of AI in Montreal

  • Seeing Like a Toolkit: How Toolkits Envision the Work of AI Ethics

    Seeing Like a Toolkit: How Toolkits Envision the Work of AI Ethics

  • Who to Trust, How and Why: Untangling AI Ethics Principles, Trustworthiness and Trust

    Who to Trust, How and Why: Untangling AI Ethics Principles, Trustworthiness and Trust

  • Beyond Dependency: The Hidden Risk of Social Comparison in Chatbot Companionship

    Beyond Dependency: The Hidden Risk of Social Comparison in Chatbot Companionship

  • Rethink reporting of evaluation results in AI

    Rethink reporting of evaluation results in AI

  • The Montreal AI Ethics Institute (MAIEI) Joins the AI Alliance

    The Montreal AI Ethics Institute (MAIEI) Joins the AI Alliance

  • Selecting Privacy-Enhancing Technologies for Managing Health Data Use

    Selecting Privacy-Enhancing Technologies for Managing Health Data Use

Partners

  •  
    U.S. Artificial Intelligence Safety Institute Consortium (AISIC) at NIST

  • Partnership on AI

  • The LF AI & Data Foundation

  • The AI Alliance

Footer


Articles

Columns

AI Literacy

The State of AI Ethics Report


 

About Us


Founded in 2018, the Montreal AI Ethics Institute (MAIEI) is an international non-profit organization equipping citizens concerned about artificial intelligence and its impact on society to take action.

Contact

Donate


  • © 2025 MONTREAL AI ETHICS INSTITUTE.
  • This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
  • Learn more about our open access policy here.
  • Creative Commons License

    Save hours of work and stay on top of Responsible AI research and reporting with our bi-weekly email newsletter.