Can you be more specific about that? What do you mean exactly?
For example, during Covid in France, almost every provider wanted to launch its own consultation about what should come next after the lockdowns, after the pandemic.
I am talking about the civic tech providers. Different platforms tried, either through their clients or in their own name, to launch these kinds of consultations.
And in the end, we had this kind of collective effort to make sense of all the ideas and contributions that were coming from different sources and different tools. There was a real energy around trying to invent something new, although it probably did not last.
That would be one example.
Another example, in terms of technologies that we imagined would become more developed, is Clubhouse. I never quite remember whether it was during Covid or just after, but there was this idea of opening rooms where people could discuss anything. It was like a social network based on open discussion rooms. There was a huge hype around it. And I think it is no longer really working, or at least we do not hear much about it anymore, at least not in France.
That was also part of this broader moment, I think: the idea of reconnecting through digital tools, speaking again, discussing with strangers or with well-known people, but around specific topics. I do not know whether it still exists in any meaningful way, but it was definitely part of that period.
When you said that every provider wanted a consultation, and that later there was this kind of exchange or synthesis of ideas, did you mean there was some sort of civic tech conference or summit? Where was that energy actually happening?
No, it was not targeting professionals. It was targeting the public.
For example, a member of parliament might open a platform to collect ideas. A platform provider might create its own campaign around its own tool. Local mayors in the countryside also launched initiatives. There is also an association of local municipalities, and they started a joint platform to show what Covid was like in their own realities, which were often very different from those of the big cities.
At the same time, there were many different platforms. And it was also, of course, a way for competitors to show that their platform could be relevant.
It was a very specific moment.
You mentioned that there was a lot of energy around imagining what kinds of society might be possible. What kinds of ideas or visions were actually circulating on those platforms?
I think there was a great deal of concern around climate change. We had many processes around climate issues, and I would say it was one of the most discussed topics, even in institutional processes using civic tech tools, over those years.
There was also a lot of reflection around quality of life, around what feels meaningful. That makes sense, because Covid changed our daily lives so profoundly, and people began reflecting more deeply on that.
Then there were also questions around mobility, the use of digital tools, and the more usual topics that can be either local or global concerns.
Over the past two or three years, I would say the focus has shifted more toward AI, the impact of AI, and the governance of AI. We have also seen more and more debate around technology more broadly, for example censorship on social media or age limits for social media use.
So those are the topics we see more now. During Covid, by contrast, the focus was much more strongly on climate change and on quality of life.
Speaking of AI: in something I either read or watched with you, maybe a podcast, maybe Project Liberty, maybe Democracy Innovators, you said that AI should be part of conversations about new technologies and about solutions that could empower people.
Could AI be considered a promising new interface? And if so, in what ways? How do you think about it?
I think AI is already here. I am not sure it is, in general, a good thing. I also see a lot of limits to it, especially in terms of environmental impact, but also social impacts and the inequalities it can reinforce.
But it is here, and it can also help digital democracy services. There are different ways it can be used.
First, it can help inform citizens better. One of the constant tensions whenever we launch a consultation is whether people are informed enough about the issue or project to contribute meaningful ideas. AI can help by summarising large amounts of information into something more digestible.
That is a first kind of assistance it can provide.
Second, it can help people draft better contributions or develop their ideas more clearly. But I do not really see this as just an individual person interacting privately with AI. What I find more interesting is how AI can support collective processes.
We have already seen that with other tools: like Dembrane or DeliberAide, and a few others, where in-person discussions can be summarised and supported by AI. That is very interesting, because those collective inputs can then be fed into a digital consultation.
That would be a second step.
Then, of course, AI can also help with analysing contributions. One of the big challenges in public consultations is that if you ask people to contribute, you have to do something with what they say. At the very least, you need to respond to their concerns, identify patterns, and explain what is being done with the contributions. That means actually reading them.
And when you have thousands of contributions, that can be extremely time-consuming and very complex. AI can assist a lot in that area.
So overall, I see AI as useful for summarising in-person conversations, making complex information more accessible, and helping analyse large numbers of contributions. In those ways, it can really have an impact.
And of course, I do not mean generic generative AI used to produce useless content or so-called “slop videos.” But when it is used wisely, I do think AI can become an interesting new interface.
What do you think are, on the one hand, the biggest barriers, and on the other hand the biggest enhancers, of accessibility and engagement in civic-tech interfaces?
I think there are some fairly classic answers to that.
First of all, these platforms are just tools. They do not create participation by themselves. If you want a consultation to work, you still have to reach people, mobilise them, and attract them to the tool. You have to make sure they actually come in and go through the process.
The first barrier is often that institutions do not communicate enough, or are not close enough to people, to attract a wide enough range and diversity of participants. In that sense, the real challenge is communication, mobilisation, and community organising. The tool itself is not magical.
On the other hand, I think there are also groups of users for whom these tools are especially useful. Some people do not usually participate physically, do not vote, and do not join parties or local debates, but they are connected digitally and are able to use online tools. In that sense, civic-tech platforms can help bring in new people and draw them into discussion and decision-making.
So again, it is not neutral. You have to build communication and mobilisation around the tool if you want it to succeed.
Then, on the side of the tool itself, accessibility matters a lot. The more you can simplify access, for example, by avoiding overly complicated log-in systems, the better. You also need a clear call to action, and the process has to offer people some real power, real impact, or at least a sense of agency.
And finally, it is very important to follow up with people: to provide feedback and let them know what happened with their contributions. That is essential.
At this point, I think it would be very difficult to run participatory processes at scale without digital tools.
That makes sense. I was reading some of your writing and listening to podcasts with you, and I saw you say something interesting about Decidim. You said that it was originally developed according to a certain vision of what a participatory platform should be. But now, ten years later, there are things it does not do, and it would be useful to think about what we actually need now — in 2026, and also looking ahead five years.
I would love to hear more about that. What do you think we need now, and what do you think we will need in five years, in terms of these kinds of interfaces?
I think one thing we need is for these systems to become more robust in detecting what actually comes from real citizens.
As opposed to bots or AI?
Yes, bots, AI, or coordinated manipulation. We have seen this before: people sharing the same content, promoting the same proposals, or coordinating votes in order to influence the final decision. In French we often talk about this through the concept of astroturfing, creating the illusion of grassroots participation while actually manipulating the process.
We need stronger protection against that.
The problem is that doing so usually requires stronger authentication systems. And authentication itself becomes a barrier to participation, because people then have to prove their identity, provide ID, or go through verification steps. So it is a complicated issue.
More broadly, I think these technologies should become much more embedded in everyday local life. At the moment, more and more projects use participatory platforms, but they still remain quite institutional. That can make them feel abstract, or not concrete enough, for many citizens.
Ideally, they should become part of daily life. Since people already have their phones with them, maybe participation should become as simple as being able to access your city’s or your state’s platform directly, record your voice, film something in your environment, upload it with your identity attached, and receive feedback almost in real time.
Something like that could make participation much more immediate.
We have also worked a lot on the question of interoperability between different platforms. The idea is that if different systems use the same data formats, then contributions coming from different places can still be analysed under the same standards. That would allow us to move away from siloed participation spaces and toward a more global conversation on a given topic.
For example, we could compare contributions from different sources, or add new layers of information on top of ideas that already exist, instead of starting from a blank page every time there is a new policy, a new mayor, a new election, or a new consultation.
Because that is what often happens now: institutions reinvent the wheel every single time they launch a consultation, even though online participation has already been around for more than ten years.
I think we need to get much better at making sense of the data already produced through these tools. And that data can come in many forms: voice, written contributions, maps with geolocated ideas, surveys, and many other kinds of interaction.
In that sense, what we really need is a toolbox, something flexible that can combine all these different interfaces and use them together.
And ideally, participation should become a habit. If these tools are used regularly, and not just occasionally, then people become more familiar with them, the barrier to participation drops, and participation becomes more systematic.
At the same time, all of this only makes sense if the space remains safe from manipulation, bots, and excessive external influence.
I have two closing questions. First, is there anything you would like to add — perhaps an important question about interfaces, civic participation, or open technology that I have not raised? And second, are there other people or experts you would recommend I speak to about these topics?
There is one concept I have always loved, although it goes back maybe ten or fifteen years. I think there was at least one pilot project based on it, and for me it really captures what an interface can be.
There were experiments with physical portals connecting different cities through live video. So, for example, in the main square of one city you would have a portal-like installation, and it would broadcast what was happening live in another city, in another country. It became a kind of window or gateway to that other place. Sometimes the connected city would even change from day to day.
For me, that is a very powerful interface, because it allows people to experience diversity directly, to encounter difference in a very immediate way.
I think we actually have something like that in New York with Dublin, or with some Irish city.
Yes, I think there have been several pilots of that idea. It was proposed quite a long time ago, but I still love the concept. I would really like to see more of it.
Another example of a technology or initiative we have not mentioned, but which makes a lot of sense to me, relates to the fact that many people today are experiencing loneliness. Taking part in decision-making or deliberation can also be a way of connecting with other people.
There is an initiative, I think it started in Germany, called My Country Talks. We had a pilot of it in France last year or perhaps two years ago.
The idea is that you answer a survey, and then you are matched with someone else from your area who has different opinions from yours.
Different political opinions?
Exactly. And the point is that you have to meet in person. You are also given a kind of discussion guide. So you meet someone else, probably with different views, and through that real-time conversation you develop social skills and deliberative skills.
I really think it is an answer to many problems. You are connected through a tool that can basically match different profiles.